Answer184

	Sign In Sign-Up

Answer184

Question184

Do you, as an atheist, have a concept of good and evil? If so, what defines 'good' and what defines 'evil'? Many theists say that we atheists have no morals, based on the first part of this question. How do you respond to this?

I define "good" as anything that results in a net decrease in suffering, and "evil" as anything results in a net increase in suffering. Of course this is complicated by factors such as intent, consent, etc. (Chris Nelson #135)

I think that there are several varieties of good and evil. 1) As a humanist, I would say that what allows or helps humans to realize their potential is good, and what inhibits them is evil.

2) I live in a society with rules. Legally, what the laws permit is good, and what they prohibit is 'bad'. I may not necessarily agree with societies definitions of good and bad, but since I also live in a democracy I must either accept the will of the majority, or if I object, try to change the laws or leave the country.

3) As an individual, what I like, or that which gives me happiness is good, and that which hurts me, or causes sadness is evil.

The problems arise in that all three classes of 'good' and 'evil' do not coincide. I think that what is good for humanity should take precedence over what is good for the society, or country, which should take precedence over individual wants and desires.

What I want for myself may not be allowable under the law, or even further the cause of humanity, e.g. if I wanted to become supreme dictatorial ruler of the Earth. (Which I don't).

Or my country might ask me to do something which I believed violated my ideas of what is good or evil for the human race, e.g. order me to fight in an unjust war.

I'm not advocating subservience, but rather my own self interest I think that I would be happiest and prosper in a stabler society which is working to advance human well being and knowledge.

BTW, I don't consider floods, tornados, earthquakes, storms and the like evil. They are simply natural phenomena which must be dealt with. (John Hachmann #1782)

a) Yes.

b) Good is what causes an improvement in anyone's life with the minimum harm to others. The more people who benefit from that improvement and the fewer people harmed by its consequences with the lesser degree of harm, the greater good. Evil would be the same with reversed conditions. They're not absolutes, nothing is purely good or purely evil. Everything has its degree in both scales. c) Somebody, I can't remember who, said that morals is the practical application of ethics contaminated with a religious reference frame or other. I don't know if it's a very academic 'definition', but I subscribe it and my answer is that they're right, I have no morals, I have ethics. (Angel Arnal #1443)

Do you, as an atheist, have a concept of good and evil?

Yes, but 'good' and 'evil' are subjective concepts which vary from person to person and culture to culture.

> If so, what defines 'good'

In my personal opinion (since I can't speak for anyone else) "good" are acts which help people or me, make me feel happy or makes others feel happy through my actions.

> and what defines 'evil'?

Again, this is strictly personal opinion. Hurting others or hurting myself.

> Many theists say that we atheists have no morals, based on the first part of this question. How do you respond to this?

Quite vehemently, actually. I fine that accusation quite insulting. (The Great Hairy One)

"Good" and "evil" usually come wrapped in such religious mumbo-jumbo, they don't seem very useful for discussions of what constitutes ethical behavior in human societies.

That said, I base my evaluation on whether a given action is beneficial or harmful to the individual and/or the group. And while that's a subjective standard, it's one that will itself be formed and given relevance in the context of the society in which it is applied.

Theists make lots of unsupported claims. The notion that atheists have no basis for their ethics is one. It's typical bleater nonsense that deserves no reply. (George Ricker #146)

Do you, as an atheist, have a concept of good and evil?

Yes.

>If so, what defines 'good' and what defines 'evil'?

I'm not sure if such terms can be defined. I do not think it is the case that saying the good is _identical_ to what promotes the species, what promotes all societies or certain ones, what makes the most amount of people most happy, and on and on. I do not deny that there are correlations between "good" and such proposed definitions, but I do not think we have a definition there. Rather, I am skeptical that moral terms can ultimately be reduced to non-moral categories, even though there are correlations. Non-moral facts certainly are and should be used in our moral judgements and decisions, but we cannot derive a moral claim solely from the nonmoral facts we are given.

(Of course, I must wonder more often here. Mark Twain, I think it was and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, once said "I am more moral than George Washington. He couldn't tell a lie. I can but do not." Twain was wrong. He whose moral being is such that the question of lying does not even come up is more moral than he who has to fight with the decision. After all, most of us do not deliberate "hmm...should I go outside and kill those guys working on their van?" The thought just never crosses our minds (except when we are doing these metaethical ramblings); there was never a decision to be made; we would not think of killing someone and that I think is even better than still not murdering anyone, though having to actually decide.

>Many theists say that we atheists have no morals, based on the first part of this question. How do you respond to this?

By showing that it is false empirically. What better way is there to show it? (Ed. Stoebenau #143)

I think I have a good sense of good and evil, due almost entirely to my upbringing. I was raised as a Christian, and Pledged allegiance to the flag in school every day. Between those two things I developed certain concepts of good and evil. I tended to believe that what I was taught in school was true, naturally enough. But when I found out that what the pledge claims is not always true I did not reject it, I decided that the values the pledge claims are good. And that those of us who reject them are evil. I was also taught that Christ taught about love, tolerance and peace. And view those who reject those ideas as evil. Though now an atheist, I see no reason to change my basic views of good and evil. (Dick Caven #1349)

I think more often in terms of what is "harmful" vs. "helpful." You could say these are evil and good, I suppose.

However, morality is strictly speaking a matter of judging the quality of a person's actions. Since I use the harm/help spectrum, I think that covers the idea that I have morals. I just use a more useful, natural means of making such a determination. (Nemo - #1331)

I don't believe in "good" and "evil" because they are usually presented as absolutes and sometimes given the characteristics of being entities or forces. To me that is complete crap.

As for having no morals, that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't need the need to please "good" or the fear of "evil" (or the fear of "good", ie "god" for that matter) to follow my morals. I also don't believe that anyone should have to follow my morals because I recognize that they developed within me over my lifetime based on experiences and teachings mingling together.

A good example is a class I took many eons ago as a very young lady. It was a morals class and it was taught by a former nun with a chip on her shoulder about the church. She asked me if I thought it was wrong to steal. I replied that it was, in my opinion. She asked if I thought it was wrong to steal to feed your hungry kids. I replied that it was wrong to steal, but it was right to feed your children. For her that was a great contradiction. To me it was not. I explained that the ends were right but the method was wrong, but we all do things that we consider wrong when we decide that we can or should. It doesn't mean that the end make the means right, but who among us can say we've never done anything "wrong?" I said it's just human ego that tries to say that something we find morally wrong is right if we have a good enough reason and that I just accept that life isn't perfect and sometimes I will have to test my morals and sometimes go against them. (ClaySkye #4)

Recognizing that "good" and "evil" are very subjective, I've wondered if there was a more objective way to describe and develop "morals" or as I prefer "ethics".

The one answer I've been able to come up with so far is that ethics or morals are social conventions. One factor that (in my opinion) that has been in large part responsible for the evolutionary success of humans is their ability to communicate and cooperate. I suggest that we use that as the basis for our understanding of ethics.

Additionally, there are some basic understandings and generalizations about people and society that define morality. First is that each person acts in a manner that they believe to be in their own best interest. Now, sometimes this does turn out to be correct and sometimes, their actions show a misunderstanding of their real best interests, but inevitably, they act in what they think at the time is their best interest. Second, in the long term, the best interests of the individual are tied to the best interests of the society. As part of a society, it is in each individual's best long term self-interest for that society and the overall system to advance, develop and improve. Third, the societies that have best developed and improved are those that have had the most freedom for the individuals in that society.

All of this together forms what I have called the "Principle of Rational Self Interest". It is important that all four points be taken together, and not separately. a. We humans are successful largely based on our evolved ability to communicate and cooperate. b. Each individual acts in a manner they believe is in their own best self interest. c. It is in the best long term self interest for the individual when the system (system here meaning the individual and society and the environment, all together) advances and develops. d. Society can best develop and advance when it assures complete freedom and opportunity for every individual in the society.

Finally, moral or ethical behavior results from following this simple principle. Behavior which counters, opposes or degrades this is in my opinion immoral or unethical. Of course, like any other moral or ethical code, there are no cut and dried, black and white answers. Judgement, empathy, understanding,... are still needed to make worthwhile choices. (Woden #1796)

Click here to return to master question page.