'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

"Defense to P1: We all like being happy. It feels good to have this feeling in you, so naturally you want to be happy whenever possible. I do this by playing video games." The issue I take, philosophically with this reasoning is that it isn't a moral argument. The explicitly moral term 'good' is being equated with the non-moral terminology of pleasure, happiness etc. In fact the entire argument is constructed within non-moral parameters. The argument is simply a formal justification for why one individual is compelled to act in a certain way; a sort of egoism is invoked - that is the ethical theory that equates good with self-interest. If the tenets of the ethical theory being proposed in the argument given in the previous round are extrapolated, we are simply left with the idea that we should all act in our own interest; and only in the interest of others when it has positive ramifications for ourselves. If we imagine a society that utilised these ethical principles; I believe most atheists would recoil at the thought. The principle that altruism (helping others) only has moral value if the person whom you treating well has some net utility to you, as in the example of a girlfriend who if we buy nice flowers will reciprocate the act with affection. However, what of charity, what of the faceless an unknown masses that money given to the redcross or other charities serve to help; does a child in Syria's inability to 'return the favour' of charity mean they warrant less? Even if we accept the argument that we should do 'good' (as it is commonly defined) because we get a sort of self-satisfaction from doing so; if the measure of moral value is self satisfaction why wouldn't I spend my money on myself therefore deriving unmediated pleasure. Acting in an ostensibly moral way out of self-interest has been the subject of critical writing on ethics throughout much of philosophical history. Indeed Emanuel Kant would call someone immoral for giving away all their property to charity if their motivation for doing so was self interest. By stumbling onto a logical justification for why atheists ought to act in a certain way (a logical justification I myself have tried and failed with), the key issue of establishing a sound foundation for atheistic morality has been touched upon. Without God, we are forced to conjure up a purely logical justification for why atheists OUGHT to act in a certain way. However, as I believe I have demonstrated, these arguments cease to be moral at all; they merely serve to justify why I act selfishly and in essence they say I act selfishly because I act selfishly. The link between acting in self-interest and acting MORALLY is never actually made. Saying I should buy flowers for my girlfriend because it will make her, and in turn me, happy is not a moral argument, it seems moral; but as a proposition it is no different to me saying 'I'm hungry, therefore I SHOULD order a pizza' or even 'I want a promotion so I SHOULD laugh at my bosses jobs'. More then this though, in the atheist's quest to find a purely rational justification for their intuitive morals - they are forced to construct arguments that don't actually tally with their own, or many others moral compasses. I doubt that pro sincerely believes that we should only care about others if there is some benefit to ourselves. It is not a sound moral foundation that forces us to forgo our intuitive morals in order to eek out an argument to act in a certain way. As I said earlier I think the argument fails by not actually being a moral argument, but the principles this and any other logically based ethical theories espouse are important too and need to be assessed. I would agree with the readers who at this point are questioning why we need to bother with a theoretical justification for atheist's morality at all. There are two reasons I will briefly make at this juncture as to why I think this question is important. Firstly, in reality, our job, nationality possessions all pale in comparison to the importance of questioning whether there is a God or not? What is right or wrong? etc. Does the question of what is right and wrong not merit greater consideration then simply saying 'I act like this because I feel like it'. Secondly, it is intellectually lazy to not try to grasp a better explanation of our personal philosophy. It is for this reason we must be critical of all attempts at establishing atheistic morality. This debate is concerned with whether there is presently an adequate justification and foundation for atheistic morality; it possible there is and it is possible that there simply is not. Yet I would argue that pro has so far failed to provide one , but we shall see.