I'll add that you are welcome to answer if you are a believer too.

For myself, I think it's pretty obvious that ethics/morals in general (specific, cultural nuances notwithstanding) are partially innate, fostered by environmental factors. I believe in the not-so-distant future this will be borne out by cross-cultural brain studies, including mapping out the areas that give rise to these higher 'instincts'.

We have the inherent ability to empathize with others and do so with animals - to the degree that they have a similar appearance. Through empathy, we feel the pain of others as pain, a proxy noxious experience that we seek to avoid or alleviate.

Clearly, there are exceptions - mob behavior, deviants - but these represent either an us/them scenario (in which the 'them' is rendered 'other' and dehumanized) or the exception that proves the rule.

Ultimately, I think ethics/culture and innate 'morals' arose as the co-products of evolution - groups that took care of each other were more hardy in the face of adversity and thus more likely to leave offspring.

1. Multiple sources including culture, heuristics ingrained by evolution, rational response to non-zero-sum situations, etc.

2. Bollocks. We are not nihilists or solipsists. This myth is equivalent to the myth that Jews have coitus through a hole in a sheet.

3. No.

4. Yes.

Morality is an abstract human concept created by human beings to describe basic socially beneficial actions brought up through evolution and the propagation of the species. This was furthered by human cultural development as well.

The interesting thing to note here is that believers of faith hold that Morality is given by god, but numerous historical events show that faith based societies would commit terrible acts in the name of religion basically disassembling that whole notion.

Morality is also a fluid concept and not directly black and white, it is wrong to kill people, but it is okay if done for national security interests or at a time of war. It is wrong to commit theft, but not if it benefits me and I cannot be caught see Enron/Maddoff.

Do you really contend that the properties of self benefit and impunity are sufficient to render an act "right", or at the very least, morally neutral?

I can see how these things being the case might make the acts in question more tempting and perhaps more likely to be committed, but I have to contend that they are still "wrong" in an ethical sense.

To say otherwise is to invoke some sort of Berkeleian ethical standard in which the moral quality of an act is only the one observed.

I don't think that most religious people claim that they get their morals from god, some claim that they were revealed by god, but that's only in the form of commandments - i.e. divine law, which is not the same as morality.

^ I think farhad is referring to how people tend to behave in private, which differs from ethics openly professed. The main purpose of government is to disincentivise actions that have a net harm and inventivise actions that have a net benefit; when that is accomplished self interest is sufficient to promote good behavior.

The fact that peoples moral behavior diverges from their moral code is a different thing from my statement which describes how they think about their morals, what they believe.


good for me has at least something to do with will and is, at least partially, not an objective thing. You could construct a machine that delivers food to the poor and and plays a tape of approval when a child finishes his homework but that does not make the machine good.

.

I think that morality and religion have little to do with one another.

I really think organized religion is a way of controlling people, especially since a regional, organized "church", in almost every example in the world, is closely intwined with the political powers that happen to rule that very same region.

Protastant, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Hindu, Sikh....

When you look at the regional politics and the regional religion, the two are rarely far apart.

Atheism, even agnosticism or some third-party sense of spirituality, is often a very real threat to the powers that be.

The sheep that realizes it's a sheep can become a wolf; and maybe rescue the other sheep.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is enough of a moral guide for me...

Since this is all very interesting to read, I'll pose a question for you all if ya wanna use it in a future post or something. Hopefully it won't get flat discussion should you choose to discuss it.

Assume first that atheism is True.

Consider the following:
It is inevitable that relatively soon you will die. You will cease to be and--not existing--will remember nothing that you have done. It is also inevitable that everyone and everything that remembers what you have done or who you are will also die relatively soon. Even if you and a million generations after you lived a trillion years and remembered you, they will inevitably die as well, so ultimately you and all you have done will be forgotten as if it--and you--never happened to begin with. This implies that the only way for anyone to matter at all is to live for eternity... real eternity. Otherwise, even after unimaginable ages, we will all pass away and will have never mattered. So, "I live to enjoy life" and "I live for the betterment of humanity" and "I live to pass my genes" all are moot, since all will be lost and forgotten ultimately unless eternal life is achieved.
That said:
What is the point?
Can you imagine not existing anymore?

[Added after Farhad's post... should have included it to clarify]
Considering the above paragraph, why does anything at all, including morality, matter at all?

What is the point?
- Why does there have to be a point? It's all a ride. It's like going to party, you have a few drinks, you have a few laughs, maybe get into a fight, maybe get laid. Maybe you get shot.

Can you imagine not existing anymore?
- Very easily. Am comfortable with dying.

Doc_M, that's an excellent couple of questions, I'll make a new post for it.

Other, more devout atheists than I, often give an answer that's something like this: Because we know there is no afterlife, we know that every life is as precious and unique as a snowflake in a snowstorm -- and it lasts just as long.

Therefore you must do right by yourself and everyone, doing your best to make others happy while they're here, respect their choices they make on their journey, and live in such a way that you won't regret the choices you've made when you lie on your death bed, because you'll never have another opportunity to get it right.

I'm not quite so sure about the absence of an afterlife, and I don't think my morality is based on some pressure of my impending mortality, so much as a desire to do well by others because it feels good...and happens to be viewed as specially righteous as well.