David Hammond
Dr. Gibbons
English 02, 6223
9 September 2004

Morals Without a God

They say that morals go hand-in-hand with religion. They say that religion is essential to being an ethical human being. A good Christian, they say, never A good atheist. What about morals requires religion, and what about religion implies morals? There is a relationship, but it isn't as clear as most people assume.

A popular belief among atheists is that religion was created by man to serve two major purposes: to explain things that couldn't otherwise be explained in order to make sense of the universe, and to organize and enforce rules that encourage good behavior. Humans, along with most other animal species, are naturally selfish. We learn through interactions with others that it is often ultimately in our own best interest to be more synergetic. This is an abstract idea that doesn't come easily to small children, so parents learned to teach them that there will be real punishments for those who act selfishly. Often in monotheistic religions, this punishment could be eternal damnation. In others, it could be rejection from society, or bad fortune. The children are also often promised rewards for acting good, such as an eternity in heaven. Through this positive and negative reinforcement, they become more considerate.

It is clear that religion isn't essential to being a good person. One in forty people on the Earth is atheistic and nearly one in ten people is agnostic, according to David Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia. Yet statistics show no direct link between godlessness and crime. The only proposed evidence for such a link has been situations in which the persons in question were brought up in immoral or negligent environments, which links to crime regardless of religion. There are many ways that a person could decide to become atheistic, and they often involve giving up on society, which leads back to selfishness and disregard for others. However, people also turn to atheism supposedly out of enlightenment, which could go either way, to or from religion, and in those cases there doesn't appear to be any evidence of moral degeneration.

On the flip side, there are many cases in which strong religious beliefs have lead to hatred and suffering. Some examples of this were the Crusades of the Christians or the Spanish Inquisition, in which many innocent people were tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity. In fact, Christianity has proved to be the deadliest religion in history at the hands of fanatics. It's when the religion is no longer interpreted as guidelines, but as definite rules instead, that they begin to have more negative effects than positive. The fanatics believe that their religion is the only truth, and so everyone who isn't practicing their specific religion is doing evil. This mentality is still apparent in a large portion of the world's population, and it's no different from what Martin Luther King was fighting against. Ignorance brews hatred, which inevitably leads to senseless suffering. Ignorance is a chain, much like the chain of violence that writer Mary Fisher described, that binds us and keeps us from being free. The mentality isn't discovered; it is taught. And as long as the links in the chain refuse to find the truth, the chain will never be broken.

There are good points to religion as well, when used correctly. Some people still need religion in order to function in society. They need it written in black and white why they should be good to others, so if they are ever in doubt they can always turn to the texts. Ability to function in society without religion requires a good upbringing, in which it is easy to see the positive effects of being good to others. On the other hand, if you're brought up in an environment in which the results of your actions are less apparent, or lacking positive reinforcement, you may need religion in order to break the chain of immorality.

It doesn't necessarily take religion to have good morals, but religion does help in many cases. The truth is, even as an atheist, I believe that religion is important to the world, despite its several negative attributes. Morals do go hand-in-hand with religion, but morals can also walk alone.

Works cited

• Barrett, David B. Editor. World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative study of churches and religions in the modern world AD 1900-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Fisher, Mary Kay. The Broken Chain. The Bedford Reader. 8th ed. Jane E Aaron, X J Kennedy, and Dorothy M Kennedy. Boston MA: 2003. 13-16.
• King, Martin Luther, Jr. I Have a Dream The Bedford Reader. 8th ed. Jane E Aaron, X J Kennedy, and Dorothy M Kennedy. Boston MA: 2003. 603-607.

Christianity as a moral philosophy supplies its belivers with a first principle of morality that necessitates moral behavior - the first principle of Christianity is charity, so that the bottom line of moral reasoning for a Christian is doing the good to others.

Do people that call themselves Christian always do this? No. Therefore, can they be called Christian? No. Therefore, is Christianity a defective moral philosophy? No - the people that offer it lip service, on the other hand, are defective moral units.

Therefore, we can reject the idea that religion causes bad - the argument is now that self-interest, in the guise of religion, causes bad.

I wonder what first principle that a secular atheist like yourself could adopt for your moral reasoning. Were I a Christian and faced with a moral dilenma, my reasoning would go until I saw an avenue to give charity, and this charity would dictate my choice. However, this charity would have no reason to be chosen if not for Christ. What moral principle could an atheist possibly have other than self-interest? Is it simply an unthinking and irrational desire to do good for others? This is the usual atheist cop-out, but it doesn't do much for them. After all, when participating in moral reasoning, this unthinking and irrational desire to do good to others will demonstrate itself to be irrational and unthinking, and then will be disposed of, leading to the atheist falling back once more into doing what's good for number one, doing what's good for the self.

Conclusions: Christianity and other religions, properly understood and adhered to, cause no problems. The problems are caused by people motivated by self-interest who claim their motivations are religious.

Secondly, atheist and secular morality have no first principle other than doing good for the self, which is a principle of acquisition and not morality at all. Without some sort of transcendant principle that grounds the good of the self and the good of the other in the same place, there is no such thing as "morality."

Hahaha, wow, you really have no clue of what you're talking about, do you? Don't try to pretend that you know how atheists think when you clearly don't. I base my morals on science. The actions that I choose to make are the ones with the highest approximate probability of ultimately benefiting society. I don't need some higher power to tell me what's right and what's wrong. Morals are instinct. They help us survive and benefit as a species. Of course there often is no rational motive for doing a positive moral deed, but to think that this should sway a non-religious person from doing good is a clear misunderstanding of the mindset of my type of belief system.

Let's start from the beginning. Why should we do anything in life if everything is ultimately meaningless? My answer: why not? Stuff feels good. Sure, there's no higher purpose, but doing things feels good. It's really that simple. But to take it a step further, being kind to others also feels good. It's fulfilling a natural desire that we acquired through evolution. There's no big purpose for it. Our species just wouldn't have been as successful as it is if we didn't have this natural desire. Is there some greater value on society itself? No, I don't think so. But why not make the best of things? Why not aspire to create the best conditions for the future? I don't like being surrounded in misery, so I don't let that happen. You may call it selfish, but that's really a superficial understanding of it. I think helping people purely because it feels right to do so is more honorable than helping people because someone told you you should.

[i]"I base my morals on science."[/i]

Hee! Could you please tell me what branch of science uncovered a finding that presents an absolute principle regarding our behavior with others?

[i]"The actions that I choose to make are the ones with the highest approximate probability of ultimately benefiting society."[/i]

Why are you benefitting society? What is the moral principle you have that makes you serve society, and what is its rational justification?

[i]"Morals are instinct."[/i]

This goes against the views of every moral thinker in history. Morals and instinct are set apart from one another - instinct is wholly centered on acquisition and satisfaction of self, while morals are the principles that rationally constrain our behaviour toward some higher good. If you [i]really[/i] believe that morals are instinct, than you've already justified my claim that atheist morals are always self-interested, and have no reason to tell me not to pretend I know how atheists think.

[i]"Of course there often is no rational motive for doing a positive moral deed." [/i]

Now you're in trouble.

[i]"Stuff feels good. Sure, there's no higher purpose, but doing things feels good. It's really that simple. But to take it a step further, being kind to others also feels good."[/i]

And what if rape makes me feel more good than being nice to others? By the principles you've set up here, I would be morally justified in rape, since moral justification in your eyes needs only to make me feel good.

[i]"Is there some greater value on society itself? No, I don't think so."[/i]

This justifies my above made point that atheist "morals" aren't morals whatsoever, since they explicitly (as you just have) throw out the idea of a greater good for society toward which each individual can subsume his own particular self-interest for the sake of that greater societal good. Any definition of morality you'll ever find (except for your own hyper-secular one) involves the rational willing of a greater good. You claim that morals are irrational, and there is no greater good - basically, you're arguing against the existence of morals.

[i]"But why not make the best of things? Why not aspire to create the best conditions for the future?"[/i]

Why the hell should I? If I adopt the principles you're arguing, I can be MUCH happier taking advantage of people for my own pleasure. The principles you're arguing here might resonante with naive, gentle, and uncritical ethical thinkers, but if you present them to corporate or government tyrants that live in our world, they'll agree wholeheartedly that everyone should seek their own pleasure, and scoff at your irrational pleading for them to help others "just because it feels good."

[i]"You may call it selfish, but that's really a superficial understanding of it."[/i]

The principles you're arguing can only be understood superficially, since they lack content. The argument you're making has one level - seek your self-interest. You, a naive, gentle, and uncritical ethical thinker, involve yourself in this principle by making it mean that you should decrease suffering in others to maximize your own happiness. However, this is only how -you- interact yourself with this superficial guiding principle. However, anyone who was less naive, less gentle, or more critical than you would be happy to latch on to these principles, since they offer unlimited self-fulfillment but have no necessity whatsoever to do a greater good or limit one's own pleasure.

To recap:
a) your position is utterly without form, possessing only a single principle (the fulfillment of self)

b) this principle involves the outside world of society only in a strictly accidental and secondary manner - you involve it because you're irrationally naive and gentle in your desire for the good of the society, but anyone else using these principles would not be necessitated to do so

c) this principle, if deemed to have truth in it, would justify the actions of any criminal or tyrant in history who pursued his own self-interest

d) by rejecting the idea that there is a common societal good to be pursued, you reject the idea of morality altogether

If you believe that the highest end for human beings is their own happiness, but for some reason cling to your idea that there can be no logic in morality, I suggest you read Aristotle's [i]Nichomachean Ethics[/i]. Once you've actually made some effort to understand ethics, -then- write another paper on them :)

Hee! Could you please tell me what branch of science uncovered a finding that presents an absolute principle regarding our behavior with others?It isn't about absolute principals. It's about what works to produce the best long-term outcome of a situation. The best outcome is determined by what ultimately makes life the most pleasurable for now and the future. The actions that can produce such outcomes can be determined through rationality, not just by sticking with dogmas.

Why are you benefitting society? What is the moral principle you have that makes you serve society, and what is its rational justification?I don't believe that there's any particular reason to do this except that it feels good. Why do something that feels bad and would feel bad long-term when there's no benefit at all? You don't. You do what would make life the most comfortable long-term. That requires working with society and being good to others.

This goes against the views of every moral thinker in history. Morals and instinct are set apart from one another - instinct is wholly centered on acquisition and satisfaction of self, while morals are the principles that rationally constrain our behaviour toward some higher good. If you [i]really[/i] believe that morals are instinct, than you've already justified my claim that atheist morals are always self-interested, and have no reason to tell me not to pretend I know how atheists think.You're so clueless. So I guess it's an ant's instinct to only serve itself? No. It serves the colony. You're making a lot of blanket statements when they simply aren't true. It is human instinct to use rationality. Morals come from rationality. Rationality is what sets us apart from most animals. We have the ability to use logic to determine the best courses of action. We can see that the only way for us to be happy is to help others. It makes us happy because it's fulfilling a more primitive need: to be a part of the society.

Now you're in trouble.Poor choice of words, I admit. I meant that there is often no rational reason staring you in the face. If a guy drops his wallet, what reason do you have to give it back? However, the true rationality that leads to moral development goes deeper than that, and is affected by instinct. We want to be a part of the community. It's natural. And so helping others is natural. There is also deeper rationality involved. Chances are that taking the wallet would hurt the guy more than it would help you, so it is best that the guy gets the wallet back. On the other hand, if you'd have to steal a car in order to save a dozen lives, stealing the car would bring the greatest benefit to the society, so that's what's morally right.

And what if rape makes me feel more good than being nice to others? By the principles you've set up here, I would be morally justified in rape, since moral justification in your eyes needs only to make me feel good.Really? Raping someone would make you feel good? That's pretty sad. I mean, sure, there would be sexual pleasure, but for me that wouldn't even come close to the guilt. What causes guilt? Again, it's your natural desire to work in a society. It's instinct. You feel guilty because you just screwed up someone's life with insignificant gain. Let alone the fact that you could face negative external consequences yourself, the whole event in the end is unpleasurable. So you don't do it.

This justifies my above made point that atheist "morals" aren't morals whatsoever, since they explicitly (as you just have) throw out the idea of a greater good for society toward which each individual can subsume his own particular self-interest for the sake of that greater societal good. Any definition of morality you'll ever find (except for your own hyper-secular one) involves the rational willing of a greater good. You claim that morals are irrational, and there is no greater good - basically, you're arguing against the existence of morals.What really bugs me about you is that you seem to imply that, since I'm an atheist, I must be selfish and insensitive. This is exactly why I wrote this essay: people like you. It disgusts me. I'm about one of the nicest guys you'll meet in person. I always think about others before myself. And to me, the reasons I do so are very clear. It's natural. To me, what you're referring to as the strive for greater good is simply our instincts to work for society. We are more social than any of our evolutionary ancestors or cousins, and that is what helped us to outlast them (for the most part, defeat them). We have a natural desire to do what's best for the group. People may endulge in other desires like greed, but they almost always feel something missing, and that is the fulfillment of that natural desire. From my point of view, "morals" are simply what we call the drives behind actions that are made to benefit others. Those drives are in our nature. So no, I'm not claiming that morals don't exist. I'm claiming that morals aren't sent down from the heavens or made by man on no basis. The one true moral is to help society as a whole survive and live comfortably. How we try to fulfill this moral is due to rational thought. And science really helps here.

Why the hell should I? If I adopt the principles you're arguing, I can be MUCH happier taking advantage of people for my own pleasure. The principles you're arguing here might resonante with naive, gentle, and uncritical ethical thinkers, but if you present them to corporate or government tyrants that live in our world, they'll agree wholeheartedly that everyone should seek their own pleasure, and scoff at your irrational pleading for them to help others "just because it feels good."And you have the nerve to say that I am immoral? If that's how you would really act, then that is sad, pathetic, and disgusting. Perhaps that's the benefit of religion. It gives you an excuse to be moral. I don't need an excuse. It's in my nature to be good to others. Obviously it isn't in yours.

As for governments, that's another issue entirely. Democracies are made by the people, for the people, and if they don't work to serve the people, then we have the right to tear them down. They may only exist to serve us, regardless of where moral values come from.

The principles you're arguing can only be understood superficially, since they lack content. The argument you're making has one level - seek your self-interest. You, a naive, gentle, and uncritical ethical thinker, involve yourself in this principle by making it mean that you should decrease suffering in others to maximize your own happiness. However, this is only how -you- interact yourself with this superficial guiding principle. However, anyone who was less naive, less gentle, or more critical than you would be happy to latch on to these principles, since they offer unlimited self-fulfillment but have no necessity whatsoever to do a greater good or limit one's own pleasure.Those are the people who I would call naive. Society doesn't just accept such people. Uncontrolled greed almost always leads to ruin. A true thinker would realize that you can't just work for yourself and expect no repercussions. The best outcome of a situation, even from one individual's perspective, is most often the course of action that benefits both him/herself and the group. This is a pretty well accepted idea, and there is rationality behind it.

You probably won't accept any of this, because, in my mind, you are an immoral person. Someone who cannot be moral on their own and requires religion in order to be a good person is, in my book, himself immoral.

Did you know that there is a lower crime rate among atheists than among self-proclaimed Christians? There's also a lower suicide rate and lower divorce rate. This doesn't exactly support your position on the matter, does it?

As a matter of fact, those rates are higher among Christians and other Christian-like religions than any other religion in the world. And I'm talking percentages here, obviously not just numbers.

Finally, please don't act like this paper is supposed to be some great conclusive work on the subject. I wrote it in an hour for a biweekly homework assignment in a basic English class. The paper itself is of no consequence, and you seem to be wasting your time trying to bash someone who is in no way a bad person. I must ask, what are you trying to get out of this? I see all of your points, I know where you're coming from (I used to be a Christian, too), but your arguments are simply ignoring lots of facts, making blanket statements, boasting lots of assumptions, and appealing to consequence. Your arguments clearly aren't strong enough to sway my beliefs, so I think your time would be better spent on some open religious discussion forum, not just someone's weblog. I frequent the Dream Theater forums, if you're interested in continuing this discussion in a more open environment.

"The best outcome is determined by what ultimately makes life the most pleasurable for now and the future."

And what if what would be the most pleasurable outcome for you comes into conflict with the most pleasurable outcome for your community? On what does your decision-making then based on?

"I don't believe that there's any particular reason to do this (do the good for society) except that it feels good."

So, those people who have a more intense sensation of "feeling good" from committing a violent act should commit those violent acts?

"You do what would make life the most comfortable long-term. That requires working with society and being good to others."

For -you- it requires working for society. For others, being comfortable long-term involves working against society or actively taking advantage of others - think of contemporary corporate or government tyrants. They are using the same principle you are using - the principle that the good is long-term comfort - except they don't need to use the good of society as an instrument for their comfort. By your principles, these men are justified.

"So I guess it's an ant's instinct to only serve itself? No. It serves the colony."

Are you suggesting that ants are moral units?

"We want to be a part of the community. It's natural. And so helping others is natural."

And you accused me of making blanket statements without justification? If there is an intrinsic, instinctive and natural desire for human beings to help one another, don't you think the proceedings of human history would be significantly more kind?

"Really? Raping someone would make you feel good? That's pretty sad. I mean, sure, there would be sexual pleasure, but for me that wouldn't even come close to the guilt."

We're not talking about you. We're talking about people who have a true enjoyment of rape without guilt. By your principles, they would be justified, because they are causing themself comfort.

"ou feel guilty because you just screwed up someone's life with insignificant gain. Let alone the fact that you could face negative external consequences yourself, the whole event in the end is unpleasurable. So you don't do it."

Blanket statement with no justification.

"What really bugs me about you is that you seem to imply that, since I'm an atheist, I must be selfish and insensitive."

I'm not saying you're insensitive. You have said yourself that the first principle of your moral decisions are creating comfort for yourself, and the good of the society is an instrument for that. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but that doesn't change the fact that your moral principles are based on using, like a tool, the good of the people around you to secure your own good. This is self-interest. The danger with this self-interest is that, when you come to a moral dilenma where the comfort of others CANNOT be used to secure your own comfort (and is, in fact, set OPPOSED to your comfort), the first principle of your morality will take precedence (ie: your own comfort) as opposed to the secondary principle (the comfort of others, which you use to secure your own comfort).

"And you have the nerve to say that I am immoral? If that's how you would really act, then that is sad, pathetic, and disgusting."

Not how I would act, but how the tyrants in our society - corporate heads, politicians, criminals, etc - would react to your principles. And on what ground do you have to call them sad and pathetic? They are fulfilling the moral principles you adhere to - the fulfillment of self.

"It's in my nature to be good to others."

And this nature does not present a rational defense for itself. So, when you're rationally deciding what moral choice to follow, what "your nature" tells you to do cannot be rationally justified. What your "nature" tells you to do has to followed on blind, irrational, naive faith.

"You probably won't accept any of this, because, in my mind, you are an immoral person."

What do you know about my morality? Me questioning the basis for YOUR morality has nothing to do with my beliefs.

"Someone who cannot be moral on their own and requires religion in order to be a good person is, in my book, himself immoral."

I am not a religious individual.

"Did you know that there is a lower crime rate among atheists than among self-proclaimed Christians? There's also a lower suicide rate and lower divorce rate. This doesn't exactly support your position on the matter, does it?"

I am not a Christian, firstly. Secondly, the fact that you said "self-proclaimed" Christians demonstrates the point I made in my comment to your other article - it's not the moral philosophy itself that is flawed, but the ability of people to follow it.

"The paper itself is of no consequence, and you seem to be wasting your time trying to bash someone who is in no way a bad person."

I'm not bashing anyone. I'm making you provide a rational account of your beliefs. This is philosophy: welcome to it!

"(I used to be a Christian, too)"

I am not a Christian.

"your arguments are simply ignoring lots of facts, making blanket statements, boasting lots of assumptions, and appealing to consequence."

I have not been making an argument - I've been examining yours.

"I frequent the Dream Theater forums, if you're interested in continuing this discussion in a more open environment."

No thanks. This venue allows you as much space and time as you need to provide justification for your principles, so now that the argument has begun to develop, you can begin to now provide an actual account and rational justification for why you think you should do good for your society. Your current argument, that doing the good for others is a demand of natural instinct is -
a) a blanket statement, and you hate those
b) an appeal to the same sort of blind faith held by religious individuals, and you hate that too.

So, try again?

Why do good for others?

Once again, you're misreading and confusing things. You act like I'm claiming that it is moral to do whatever feels good, while I have said from the beginning that what is moral is defined by its effect on society. If it has an overall positive effect, then it is moral. If it has an overall negative effect, then it is immoral.

When I'm talking about what feels good, I'm talking about why we are driven toward good morals -- why we go out of our way to help others. That is a natural desire that humans, as a species, have. Like I said, many people try to ignore this natural urge and act in the interest of other motives, but most such people (if aware of the damage they're causing) have a nagging sense of guilt in the back of their minds.

You say my argument implies that rapists and thieves are justified because they're doing what feels best. That isn't at all what I'm saying. If they are moral people and following their instinctive desire to be an asset to society, they wouldn't rape or steal. If they consciously harm society, then they are being immoral, regardless of where their desires come from.

"And what if what would be the most pleasurable outcome for you comes into conflict with the most pleasurable outcome for your community? On what does your decision-making then based on?"

It depends on how you define that. I consistently receive the most pleasure by helping society. Harming society would not be at all pleasurable to me.

Now, this actually leads into an interesting topic. If a group of terrorists attack a country, where does that stand morally? The men who attacked the world trade center on 9-11 didn't attack for the purpose of making the world worse. They honestly believed that the world would be better by attacking us. Similarly, when soldiers fight in wars, they feel content will killing people because they believe that it's essential in creating a greater good. They believe that their actions will, in the end, produce a better outcome for the global society. So were the 9-11 attackers moral or immoral? It's really hard to say. They certainly could have chosen more moral actions to make comparable progress toward the same goal, so by that fact you could say that they were immoral. But disregarding alternatives, was their action moral or not? It's pretty hard to tell if the actions would improve the world more than it would help it. I believe that they ultimately hurt the world. But when you're talking about morality of actions, intentions and expectations play roles in the equation. They intended and expected their actions to benefit the world more than they would hurt it. They misjudged the outcome of their results, and they misjudged the most effective way to shoot for their goals, but the intentions were there. I think that, from their point of view, the actions were moral, but the end result was something immoral. That is, they intended to improve the world, but seriously misjudged things on many levels. In some ways, misjudgement itself can be an immoral act.

"Are you suggesting that ants are moral units?"

Again, it depends on how you define "moral". Going by my definition, acting with a purpose to improve society without regard to personal cost, then yes, they are moral, and even more moral than most humans. They don't have rationality to make their natural sense of morality as effective as possible, but they do have that natural sense.

"And you accused me of making blanket statements without justification? If there is an intrinsic, instinctive and natural desire for human beings to help one another, don't you think the proceedings of human history would be significantly more kind?"

As I said in my previous reply and in this one, greed is the disregard for the natural sense of morals. Just as ways to make the most of morality are achieved through rationality, misjudged rationality can also lead to attempted disregard for natural morality. I still believe that this natural desire exists, even though the person is trying to snuff it out.

"Blanket statement with no justification."

It was implied that I was talking about non-rapists. I was explaining why people don't commit rape. Obviously rapists do. Why do you think people who are nonreligious don't commit rape?

"You have said yourself that the first principle of your moral decisions are creating comfort for yourself, and the good of the society is an instrument for that."

Technically, that's what I'm saying, but it isn't really as you're describing. My argument can also be taken as claiming that the good of society is the first principle of moral decisions and our instincts are an instrument for that. It depends on what point of view you're talking about. It kind of works both ways.

"And on what ground do you have to call them sad and pathetic? They are fulfilling the moral principles you adhere to - the fulfillment of self."

Again, no. The moral principles are, by the definition I established, whatever is supposed to ultimately benefit society. We have a natural desire to be moral. We also have a natural desire to live comfortably and beat competition. These desires often conflict. When they do, it is most often the former that benefits you in the long run, because you just can't live happily without fulfilling that need. You call it selfish, I call it taking advantage of a win-win situation. I consider the latter generally a lose-lose situation, because you are only fulfilling superficial desires at the expense of your more fundamental desires. Many people can't see this, and so they live their greedy lives and often die bitter men.

"And this nature does not present a rational defense for itself. So, when you're rationally deciding what moral choice to follow, what "your nature" tells you to do cannot be rationally justified. What your "nature" tells you to do has to followed on blind, irrational, naive faith."

I understand the benefit of these natural desires. It makes the world a better place to live in, and it helps us work together as a species. I don't believe that anything in the universe has any real intrinsic value. The value of everything is just relative to how people interact with it. This goes against pretty much every religion in the world, but it's how I feel. We live because there's no reason not to. There's no reason not to make life as rich and pleasurable as possible. There's no reason not to fulfill your natural long-term desires. The only reason not to fulfill your desires is if it interferes with fulfilling your other desires. Because we are social animals and are forced to live with the people who you could easily exploit if you so wanted, almost any such immoral deed would inevitably come back to haunt you in one form or another, whether through guilt or being arrested for your crime. In this way, our natural desires provide the basis for a working social system. The social system itself has benefits that further enrich our lives. If this isn't a rational explanation, then I don't know what is.

"What do you know about my morality? Me questioning the basis for YOUR morality has nothing to do with my beliefs."

You said that, if you were to only make moral decisions based on your natural desires, you would commit crimes and such. I wouldn't (I don't). It's plain and simple. You probably made that comment without a real clear understanding of where I'm coming from, but if what you said is true, then I do indeed consider you immoral.

"I am not a Christian, firstly."

Sorry, I didn't read your first reply carefully enough. I didn't realize that you were talking hypothetically when talking about Christ.

"Secondly, the fact that you said "self-proclaimed" Christians demonstrates the point I made in my comment to your other article - it's not the moral philosophy itself that is flawed, but the ability of people to follow it."

And that's ignoring the point that I was trying to make. My point wasn't that Christians are naturally less moral than atheists. My point was that atheists are not necessarily any less moral than Christians. No, these statistics aren't conclusive or anything, but they certainly don't suggest that atheists are without moral values.

"I'm not bashing anyone. I'm making you provide a rational account of your beliefs. This is philosophy: welcome to it!"

You're trying to pound away at my beliefs. That's what I call bashing. I have absolutely no problem with that, but I'm just curious about why you're trying so hard to convince me when you could easily be reaching out to a larger audience (with myself included). Most of the people who read my weblog are just friends and family (although most of my family disagrees with my views, but they refuse to take part in philosophical discussions as well). You're the first person who's actually wanted to discuss stuff here. :P

"Your current argument, that doing the good for others is a demand of natural instinct is -
a) a blanket statement, and you hate those"

Now I really want to hear what your beliefs are. Compared to most philosophical viewpoints, I don't think that mine is much of a blanket statement at all. Which part are you considering a blanket statement? That morals are whatever produce the best long-term effects on society? That there is a natural instinct to work for the good of the community? That fulfilling this desire produces a better long-term effect on yourself than more conscious desires such as sexual pleasure, snuffing out competition, etc.?

"b) an appeal to the same sort of blind faith held by religious individuals, and you hate that too."

In what way is my argument even comparable to blind faith? To play a part in a system that has been proven to work isn't blind faith. Obviously our natural social tendencies work or else we wouldn't be as successful as a species as we are now. I've already talked through the process rationally, so it isn't irrational to expect the process to work. You don't say that eating food is just blind faith that it'll somehow help you survive.