From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:59:11 GMT

stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:


>Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
>come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
>still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
>are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
>have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
>do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
>the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
>thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.

>scott
 

My view is that there are no absolute standards of morality.  There is no
source for morality outside of human history. Moral systems evolve over
time and vary from culture to culture. But I am not a nihilist. I believe
one can study this history and gain some idea as to why a certain moral
system exists.  For example, when salvery is economically advantagous it
exist and justifications are found. It dies out when other forms for 
organizing production prove more fruitful. Of course not all moral
phenomona are reduceable to economics. I for don't understand why 
homosexuality came to be considered wrong in many cultures, and now 
seems to be becoming somewhat acceptable. 

When I feel something is "wrong" I believe that my feeling reflect centuries
of cultural evolution and not the presence of a god.  These feelings help
socities to function. But they can also lead to results that would make me
feel worse. One can use reasoning to sort these things out, but mathematical
proofs are most likely not possible. As an analogy, think of art. We can
follow its development, and have rational discussions as to was is and is not
good art. But absolute determinations are not possible.  While "beauty is
in the eye of the beholder" we can still compair visions and ask how are
past experiences effect our current preceptions. 

Of course an "ugly" painting won't start a war, cause pollution, lead to 
a rape, etc. the way "ugly" moral values seem to.  Since these things
bother me, I think about what moral systems might reduce them. Am I right
to let these things bother me? Not in any fundamental sense. I could choose
to ingore such things, or even to do them (if fact I do cause some pollution),
but I chose to invest my efforts into finding solutions to what I feel are
problems. 

On the other hand I used to feel homosexualuty was wrong.  But I decided
not to feel that way. Why? It probably has to do with the influence of
the civil rights movement and the lack of any scientific bases for considering
homosexuality a disease.  But I can't prove my new feeling is "right".
But it does seem to fit better with my other feelings against racism. 
I like logical consistency, but even this is not an absolute.

The point is one can reach workable conclusions on moral issues without 
religion. The point is not that everyone will reach the same conclusions,
but that differences can be discussed rationally, and I like that better
than what is happening in Yugoslavia, Peru, L.A., etc.

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu