It’s important to note that since God doesn’t exist, he can’t be a source for anything. Religiosi who claim that atheists are morally bankrupt have no right to claim that they are any different.

Posted: May 21st 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke

I find it helpful to draw a clear distinction between Ethics and Morality, even if dictionary definitions are not always clear.

When I hear the word “Morality”, I associate that with rules handed down from “authority” in some form – whether that’s a human “authority” or a notional supernatural “authority”. “Thou Shalt” and “Thou Shalt Not”. You will behave how we tell you to, because we tell you to.

Conversely, I associate “Ethics” with standards that have been agreed upon by a group of peers. Examples might include medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath that doctors voluntarily take. The notion of “society” is an ethical one, since it does not exist unless people agree to be a part of it.

I make this distinction to stress the voluntary nature of Ethics: ideally, it should not be forced on people, or entered in to without a full understanding on the implications.

Posted: May 19th 2010

See all questions answered by brian thomson

The definitive source of ethics for atheists is everything. We use whatever’s available, and that’s a lot.

You said it yourself: atheists don’t hold to supposedly absolute moral authorities. That means their ethics can have multiple sources: history, philosophy, empathy, law, abstract principles (e.g. fairness, justice, the Golden Rule) and so forth.

This is less confusing and more helpful than it sounds, because the different sources usually work in concert. Take murder for instance: it’s against the law, it’s caused havoc throughout history, it goes against the teachings of hundreds of philosophers (religious and otherwise), it’s not something you’d want to happen to you, etc. So many different ways you look at it, it’s “wrong”.

This tremendous consensus bestows confidence that murder is to be prevented, punished and/or condemned. Since this isn’t an absolute ruling there may be exceptions where murder is justified, for example self-defense, but these are legitimate exceptions in very special circumstances.

Then there are issues on which there isn’t such an overwhelming consensus, for instance abortion. When approaching this subject it’s actually useful not to carry an absolute moral judgement at the outset, because that forces us to make careful decisions by considering the facts of each case. We ultimately have to use more empathy and compassion
than we would if we were pinned absolutely to one position.

Posted: May 19th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX

Humanism and secular ethics go back all the way to ancient civilizations. There are many writings in this field spanning a long period of time right up to the present.

The Elements of Ethics by Bertrand Russell is a basic primer, if not an definitive source. You can read it here along with other related writings by Russell.

Good Without God has a chapter summarizing the history of secular ethics (Chapter 2).

There are various perspectives on secular ethics, but what they all have in common is that ethics stem from humanity, excluding the supernatural.

Posted: May 15th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel