Uncertain Male In search of the bases of Atheistic Morality

[AreEl]

I find the arguments about individualism interesting, but I don't think many people could actually pull off that level of detachment from society. Most of us are social creatures heavily influenced by our culture and social networks (for better and for worse). I think someone would have to be the very definition of a sociopath to be a true "individualist". Most atheists that I know definitely don't fit that mould.

What you say makes sense: ''someone would have to be the very definition of a sociopath to be a true 'individualist'.''  Both atheism and theism are compatible with Individualism, ditto with Buddhism, Humanism, Postmodernism (and its derivatives), so...you can have your belief and your ism on the same plate!

Truly 100% natural worldviews include Naturalism and Darwinism. They are 100% Natural with no added Supernatural! Good for the Whole Family!

 

[Whitney]

I really hate the label darwinism

[Davin]

^Me too. Of course I love the label gravityism/gravityist.

[Tank]

I really hate the label darwinism

I agree. I have only found ignorant and/or duplicitous people use the term.

[Asmodean]

Here be my take:

Why should i care about the well-being of others?

You don't have to. However, caring about the well-being of others may lead to them caring about YOUR well-being.

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me? What if they do not do the same?

It's the safest gamble. It may be they do not return the favour, but greater likelihood is that if you cross someone first, they will cross you later. Hard, if they can.

What makes all humans "equal"? As in equally deserving of all rights? Why does this apply to humans and humans only?

Nothing except some common biology. Sorry, new-agers and hippies and socialists and all the other love-thy-neighbour people, but humans are just not equal nor should they be, as I see it.

For instance, one man's time costs more than another's. One man can be a "pillar of the community" while another can be a junkie, shivering in an alley. One can be a citizen while another a tourist. Some people are talented in some things and other people in other things and others still lack any sort of talent (they know about). Some have friends and others don't. The list goes on and we can, of course, find some average value, but still there will be people above and below that line.

We are different in terms of our usefulness to ourselves and our societies, and I see no harm in regognizing that fact.

What makes it wrong to commit unnecessary violence?

Wasted effort for one. The basic social contract for two, if one is not enough.

What constitutes "unnecessary" in the first place? Simply because it seems unnecessary to me, is it then morally wrong?

If it seems necessary to you, then it probably is not wrong on a personal moral level (Subjective to you, of course). The society may think differently , though as long as you are aware of it and willing to pay the price, should one be demanded, I don't really see a big moral dilemma.

When in a moral dilemma of making a choice between two  morall questionable choices, are there any rules of thumb as to which to choose? How are these rules, if any, justified?

Do what you please, then pay the price is my take on it.

Why should i be honest?

Because honesty is often useful. When it is not, however, you can consider the alternative.

How does one justify construing another's acts as wrong?

Either from a personal and often emotionally charged perspective or from the social law-based one.

What do i stand to gain from being moral or selfless?

A few good friends, perhaps. A good reputation. A bullet in your brain if you are unlucky.

[The Magic Pudding]

Why should i do to others as i would like done to me?

Because you see it as right.

Why should i be honest?

It conserves energy.

[xSilverPhinx]

Well if we all put down our forks and knives tomorrow what kind of cruelty would that inflict? Thousands of workers worldwide would lose their livelihood as their investments become defunct because worldwide demand for their product has vanished. Meaning that already struggling farmers, particularly those in developing countries would “suffer”. The livestock itself, being domesticated animals would be doomed to death without a human hand to supply food and protection from predators. Those that did not die from starvation or predation would become feral and if their populations go unchecked there is no knowing what sort of adverse invasive environmental damage these creatures would do. We would not be releasing animals back to the wild because these animals never existed in the wild. Without the meat industry to supply food to an ever growing population we would have to find a substitute. One of which could be soy as it seems to be fairly popular these days, and depending on which scientists you ask, the soy “industry” is not much better that the livestock industry.

You make a good point. Our ecological interactions with domesticated animals could be seen as a sort of simbiosis as well.

They could be better treated though, and killed as least painfully as possible.

We wouldn't want to leave out your own particular mythology now would we, AreEl?  Even skipping over the numerous passages in the Old Testament which are evidence of YHVH's predilection for violence, both directly and through commands to his chosen people, we can find instances where Jesus commanded his followers to engage in violence

I don't know how Christianity would look today if it (as a whole) didn't have the many swords to help it spread. It's not much different from Islam in this case, it just had a head start.

I really hate the label darwinism

I know...what does "darwinism" mean exactly?