Grim – I’m not disputing that moral codes can be made up, as you have illustrated, what I am wanting to know is why anyone has to listen to anyone else’s moral code.

You categorically state that when a person’s moral code “impinges on the rights of others, then it must be deemed invalid”. Who are you to say that? You have just made that moral claim up and any other person can make up just the opposite claim. Why should anyone listen to your moral claim over the other one?

AJ Phillips – please note, I have made no reference to God or religion.

I am simply asking what is the basis for an atheistic morality beyond one’s personal preferences. Why don’t you try to answer that question instead of attacking me on points that I have not made?

Yabby – you cite certain biological behaviours of animals which have been interpreted to indicate the practice of empathy, altruism, etc, by such animals. But noting the behaviours of animals tells us nothing about what I or you or anyone else ought to do. You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.

Apparently the moral code you have adopted or made up for yourself involves seeking harmonious co-existence. That may be very nice for you, but why should anyone else care what your moral code is?

Indeed, someone may give the appearance of going along with you, while all the time ripping you off. And if they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Why should they have to agree with you or anyone else? You ask: “Give me a good reason, why I should trust the word of such a kinky individual more, then my own ability to reason”. My point precisely; can’t everybody say that about yours and everyone else’s moral claims too?

Once again, please note that I have not said one word advocating a belief in a god. I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything.

JP,

The issue is that you live by your own moral code. If you believe abortions are immoral, then you don't need to have one. If you believe being gay is a sin, no one is forcing you to be gay etc.

However, if someone believes abortion is the right choice for them, then it is exactly that, and your belief cannot influence theirs.

Shadow Minister

Well said.

Houellie

"I feel all flushed. All tingly down there."

Do not touch your face after using the toilet or you'll wind up with those symptoms on your face as well, besides there is medicine for that.

JP - "please note that I have not said one word advocating a belief in a god. I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything".

JP - You advocating a belief in a god is strongly implied because you are focussing on atheists exclusively. If your question isn't trying to point your readers towards god as the only source of morality, then why mention atheism at all?

Without advocating a belief in a god, how does someone who isn't atheist justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual's personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral?

*Morality is basically an agreed set of principles between members of a society, no matter where it comes from and is subject to constant review.*

Wobbles - exactly!

For instance, a case could be made for the age of consent to be
anywhere from 12-18. We drew our line in the sand at 16 and throw
people in jail, who disagree with the majority.

*That may be very nice for you, but why should anyone else care what your moral code is?*

JP, given that others too seek to live in harmonious coexistence,
given that others too, are born with a sense of empathy, justice and
are altruistic, its in all our self interest to cooperate and get
along, given that we are a social species.

*Indeed, someone may give the appearance of going along with you, while all the time ripping you off. And if they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they?*

JP, indeed they might. That is why as a society, we ostracize them
and throw them in jail, for breaking our moral/legal rules, which
we as a majority decided.

Given that life is short and years in jail are not in their self
interest, the risk is there that they might not get away with it
after all and pay the price. Jails are full of such people.

Oh, silly me, JP. I didn’t realise you were so neutral...

<<...I have made no reference to God or religion.>>

You didn’t have to.

That your comments come from a religious viewpoint is all that matters. I mean, who else but a religious person would be silly enough to ask...

<<... what is the basis for an atheistic morality beyond one’s personal preferences.>>

You really seem to think you have a trump card here, don’t you.

Actually, I did more or less answer you in a not-so-direct fashion when I said: “an Atheist’s ability to know right from wrong comes from the same place you know how to cherry pick the nice bits of the Bible.”

That being said, where do YOU think we get this ability that all of us - Theist or Atheist - share? Why are you specifically asking Atheists as if they get their sense of right and wrong from somewhere different? Where do you think those who live hundreds or thousands of years before the Bible was written? Do you think it was any different to now?

And why does it have to be something more than, “do unto others”, or a desire to live harmoniously?

We have a conscience that has been hard-wired into us over hundreds of thousands of years as a survival mechanism. Those who have those wires crossed - for whatever reason - are called “psychopaths”.

Even without the laws of the land, humans are a communal species and so if we do something that will hurt or upset another, then we know there will be repercussions one way or the other - whether that be guilt or banishment. We show concern for others who have been wronged because we wouldn’t want that “wrong” to happen to us.

<<Why don’t you try to answer that question instead of attacking me on points that I have not made?>>

Attacking? No need to get so precious.

Considering you're arguing from a religious worldview, all of my points were entirely appropriate.

Whether or not you referred to Gods or religion is a red herring.