Atheists have Morals - Skeptical Scholar

Secular Morality:

Threshold Deontology

Threshold Deontology is a hybrid moral theory that blends elements of deontology (duty-based ethics) with elements of consequentialism (outcome-based ethics), aiming to preserve the moral integrity of deontological principles while allowing flexibility in extreme circumstances.

Core Idea

Threshold Deontology maintains that:

Moral duties and rights are inviolable—up to a point.

When the consequences of following these duties become catastrophic enough (cross a “threshold”), it becomes morally permissible—or even obligatory—to override them in favor of the greater good.

Key Components

Deontological Commitments
- Moral rules (e.g., don’t kill, don’t lie, respect rights) are normally absolute or near-absolute.
- These duties are grounded in respect for persons, autonomy, or intrinsic moral value.
- For example, it is normally wrong to kill one person to save five.
Threshold Concept
- There exists a critical level of harm or consequence—the “threshold”—beyond which the cost of obeying moral duties becomes morally intolerable.
- At or beyond this threshold, the theory temporarily gives way to consequentialist reasoning.
- For instance, killing one person might be justified to prevent a nuclear catastrophe that would kill millions.
Moral Permissibility vs. Obligation
- The theory can be framed in two ways:
  - Permissive Version: It’s permissible (but not required) to break duties past the threshold.
  - Obligatory Version: It becomes morally required to override duties once the threshold is crossed.

(Old Answer of Mine, Ignore Unless Curious) Two Important Approaches to Morality:

Ethical Emotivism is the position that morality is determined by subjective whim. An argument for it could go as follows: Morals only pertain to Subjects, and they are also colored by aesthetic factors. For example, we consider killing spiders perfectly fine, almost amoral. However, killing butterflies is considered immoral. Therefore, we subjectively grant morals to things that we find subjectively beautiful. Also, we do not value life as the qualifier for complete morality. We are perfectly fine, generally speaking, in killing plants and even most animals. When we get to humans, however, we add moral language into the mix. Why? Because humans are known to be able to deploy a conscious experience. We know from our own awareness that there are two polarities: Well-being, and Agony. We know that they are both states of the nervous system. We also know that Well-being is preferred to Agony. Thus, if an entity is capable of deploying a conscious experience that can feel Well-being and/or Agony, we apply moral language to them. Vegans, for example, usually believe animals to be aware also, and as such they apply moral language to animals equally as to humans. Some people also believe plants are aware, and thus grant them entrance to our moral language. So, morality only applies when subjects are concerned, and the very language of morals are resultant from subjective states, and thus, morals are subjective and emotionally based, not divine law.

There is another side to the secular moral dilemma. Secular Humanism believes that there can be objective moral positions, reasoned from science, applicable to living entities. This position believes that there is a moral landscape, objective states of awareness that are innately good and bad, when we apply moral terms to it. I am less educated in Secular Humanism, however I do believe that there is good arguments for it. I recommend researching it independently. Personally, I lean more towards the Ethical Emotivism side of the coin, however I am also ethically agnostic, and as such am sympathetic towards Secular Humanism also.

(Old Answer of Mine, Ignore Unless Curious) Kantian-Utilitarian Contractarianism:

Almost all living beings in possession of a nervous system and that belong to a group of other living beings will almost certainly show signs of interpersonal ethics. Ants work together, and avoid spending their time murderously pillaging their allies — after all, this would result in the necessary extinction of that species. Thus, only species with an ethical guideline within their nervous system can exist long term, definitionally. We do not suppose that Ants have an ethical code per se, because it is completely instinctual, and thus only can be conceptualized as a “code” or “law” post facto of its existence, as analyzed by a conscious agent observing their behavior. Lions, wolves, chimps, etc. all show the same reality: There exists within them an ethical instinct, or better put, the “instinct of social cohesion.” Humans are animals in the same way that all the rest are. Just like we share all of our other instincts with other animals, such as hunger, sex, anger, sadness, etc., we also share the instinct of social cohesion.

The concept of morals, however, only comes into play as a topological “top-town” abstraction of that very ethical instinct. Morals, thus, are the conscious equal to the unconscious ethical instincts, in-it that we use our sense of morals to label ethical actions in accordance with their psychological equivalents. Therefore, the ethical instinct is an objective, evolved, generalized drive that guides social cohesion, and the moral sense is the subjective appraisals of events of ethical concern. Because morals are a product of consciousness, it is inherently subjective, as it is of its very nature pertaining to the Subject. Consciousness exists to monitor the life-state of the nervous system and the body it controls, and as such is especially formulated to detect and prevent damage to the nervous system/body, signaled by pain, suffering, and agony. Resultant from that is the opposite of agony, which is well-being. Well-being is the subjective sense of “all being as it should,” whereas agony is the opposite. Thus, the subjective sense of Well-being and of Agony are rooted in the objective states of the nervous system. It is from this that we generalize to the terms “Good,” and “Evil.” Thus, morality is objectively based, but is also subjectively experienced.

Information about Kant and Utilitarianism:

Kant’s Deontology:
- Focuses on duty and adherence to moral rules or principles.
- Actions are judged based on their intentions and whether they conform to universal moral laws, regardless of the outcomes.
- The central idea is the Categorical Imperative, which requires individuals to act only according to maxims that can be universally applied (e.g., “Do not lie” is a universal moral law).
Consequentialism:
- Focuses on the consequences or outcomes of actions.
- Actions are judged based on whether they produce the best possible results (e.g., maximizing happiness, minimizing suffering).
- The most well-known form of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number.

Thus, it is my position that we are to adopt for ourselves the mixture of the two, basing our morals on the objective universals that we can derive from the ethical instinct and moral sense, one’s intentions to follow the moral Law, as well the resulting consequences of those behaviors. Then, as a final step, those moral musings are to be compared to the social contract, and a rational conclusion be drawled.

Now, there is also another organic fountain for our drives to be moral — a source of a moral “ought.” If death is truly the end, and our brain rots into nothingness, this life we have now becomes infinitely more important. Squished between two eternities, we have, on average, 80 short years to be living. We are the lucky few who went from nothingness to somethingness. For this reason, any rationality would show us that our life is therefore inherently scarce, and thus, just like limited supplies of gold make gold more valuable, limited supplies of Life make life more valuable. In this way, I can be optimistic in my nihilism. I am alive, and I can see the beautiful and chaotic universe we dwell within. Now, beyond our inherent social “ethical” instincts, I presume that other people are also in the same boat as me: their life is valuable because it is scarce.

Even the religious tend to give up their belief in an eternal paradise as soon as a gun is pointed at them, or some other threat to life. Suddenly, the awareness of our frailty becomes of utmost concern. If we truely believed that there was a heaven for us, the gun would be just a doorway into bliss. This is, of course, setting aside the precious few who do genuinely give up their life for religion. Religion, in a sense, devalues life enough to permit oneself to run towards death. Just like a virus taking over the body and speeding it towards its death, the virus of religion can drag its hosts into death. Religion makes life worth nothing, because it is only a cosmic test, a divine DMV exam to give us a shot at eternal happiness, or eternal damnation. Only the oblivionist can posit with confidence that life is unique by its very existence, and as such inspires the most profound sense of awe. We are not slaves of the divine plan. We are not toys the gods fiddle around with. We are not being monitored 24/7 by a supernatural “Big Brother” or Hitler. If we were, that would truly be the greatest tragedy.

Refuting Religious Morality:

The religious will venture to suggest that goodness means nothing if it is not attached to some supernatural entity. The reality is, claiming we derive our morals from God means nothing fundamentally different than the secular view. If God exists, and he made us, he instilled within us (our brains) a sense of morality, which happens to be mostly to the end of social cohesion. So, whether you believe they started from God and were downloaded into our brains, or that they arose from social evolution, either way they are not subjective. Arguably, if there is to be a difference between the two, secular morality is more objective because it arose from objective material, whereas religious morals arose from a Supreme Subject, namely, God. So, although one may claim God is not subjective, ultimately it is still always going to be definitionally not as objective as the morals rooted in the objective world.

Atheism and Abortion:

As regards Atheism and abortion. Evolution itself does not decide morality, it can only lead to the evolution of certain ethical instincts built to preserve genes through the mechanism of culture and group-organization. Questions of morality are questions that only begin to originate when we bring consciousness into the mix. For example, we do not bat and eye when we kill a plant, generally, because although it is living, it does not have the capacity to deploy a conscious experience capable of suffering or well-being. To this extent, we all agree that morality is a topic only applicable to conscious beings. For this reason, I believe that abortion is permissible up until around the 25th week, in which the nervous system develops a conscious awareness unique to the cells in the uterus. Before that, there is serious issues moralistically when it comes to banning abortion. One argument, called the Violinist argument, states thus: Imagine that you live in a society that highly values violinists. You fall into a coma, and when you awake, there is the worlds best violinist connected to your heart and kidney filtration. Lets even suppose you agreed to it. Do you have the human right to revoke the right of the violinist to be co-dependent on your body? The answer is of course. No one has the inherent right to use your body without consent as an adult. So, if we then say that a fetus must be allowed constant 9 month dependence, we are actually granting the fetus rights that ADULTS do not even have. In general, however, I am not an advocate for abortion. I am politically pro-choice, init that I think the government should not tell women what to do when it comes to healthcare, but I am morally pro-life, init that I would never advocate someone get an abortion generally speaking. But my morals and politics are different, because its not the governments job to legislate morality.

As regards human sacrifice, lets not forget that human sacrifice was an exclusively religious practice, such as with the Aztecs, or in other taboo religious settings. Human sacrifice is indeed unnatural, so one should spend time reflecting on religion and its role in promoting maladaptive behavior in the face of otherwise normal circumstances. Science is tuned towards “how” questions. Knowing, as we do, how the sun operates, we have no reason to engage in sacrifice towards the sun in order for it to rise. It is once we start demanding that “why” questions must be asked that we get into a difficult situation. If we allow the question “why does the sun rise,” we become open to the answer “because we did XYZ.”

As regards the natural order: many life-forms do forms of abortion, including eating their young after birth. Women’s bodies themselves can miscarry naturally. So evolution does not create morals per-se, conscious agents like humans do, and that means we are capable of breaking the chain and making life better for everyone simply because. Being good only because of fear of gods wrath is not nearly as genuinely good as being good simply to be good. Atheists try to do good because we recognize our own suffering, and that we do not like it, and therefore we want to make sure those we love do not experience it either, and then we generalize from that into the entire culture, generally.

Here below are some attempts at making a set of moral commandments that are all-encompassing, attempting to surpass the real ten commandments in usefulness:

Rotary Four-Way Test:

The Four-Way Test is the “linchpin of Rotary International’s ethical practice.” It acts as a test of thoughts as well as actions. It asks, “Of the things we think, say, or do”:

Is it the truth?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

The Commandments of Dawkins and Adam Lee:

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
In all things, strive to cause no harm.
Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
Always seek to be learning something new.
Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
Question everything.
Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.
Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.
Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

Christopher Hitchens (2010):

Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or their color.
Do not ever even think of using people as private property, or as owned, or as slaves.
Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
Hide your face and weep should you dare to harm a child.
Do not condemn people for their inborn nature — why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them?
Be aware that you, too, are an animal, and dependent on the web of nature. Try and think and act accordingly.
Do not imagine that you can escape judgement if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
Turn off that cell phone — you can have no idea how unimportant your call is to us.
Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions. And terrible sexual repressions.
Be willing to renounce any god or any faith if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

In short: Don’t swallow your moral code in tablet form.

Bayer and Figdor’s Ten Non-Commandments (2014):

The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.
All truth is proportional to the evidence.
There is no God.
We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.
We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.
We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.
All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.