On Atheistic Morality

Can one be moral without religion?

A few years ago I heard Glenn Beck talking about the origin of his morality.  His conclusion:  It comes from his faith and his religion.  I think this is probably true for him.  And true for most people.  But then Beck went on to further conclude that all morality comes from religion, and that without religion, a man cannot live a moral existence.

Now I am an atheist and an anti-theist, but I think that I am quite moral.  Who doesn't, right?  So of course Beck's comments struck a cord.  I asked myself:  So where does your morality come from?

The late Christopher Hitchens liked to make the point that he certainly hopes that his morals do not originate in religion – Because religion so often includes cruel mandates and examples.  I have also heard Richard Dawkins make this same point.  But I think this is unfair.  When a Christian says, I get my morals from the Bible, I think it is fair to conclude that he is talking about the New Testament and not the Old.  Certainly not all of the Old anyway.

So I confess, my first instinct was to sort of agree with Beck.  I was raised in the church and it was easy to assume that I had adopted Christian morality.  But with a great deal of thought, I came to realize that this was not true.  So...where does my personal morality originate?

For me, it boils down to two and only two common principles:

One:  Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Two:  Live and let live.

Now the first, the Golden Rule, appears in almost all religions.  It is certainly found in the bible.  But I would note that there is absolutely nothing divine about this commandment.  Or if you prefer, injunction.  In fact, I would argue that it is entirely practical.  We may treat others well out of the goodness of our heart.  Or not.  But we hope that they will return the favor.  Some don't, but most do.

The second principle is quite interesting.  Most people agree with it in theory.  Just ask them (as I have).  But very few seem to be able to follow it.  People want other people to believe in their god, to join their church or political party or environmental crusade, and to basically think and act like themselves.  This seems to be human nature.  And when others fail to do so, this can and does lead to various levels of separation and dispute.

I have read enough on the subject of atheistic morality to know that quite often the authors want it to be complicated.  Perhaps it should be.  Perhaps I am missing something or oversimplifying it.  Perhaps I do not understand all of the nuance and complexities.  Yes perhaps.

But I think it is completely unnecessary to make this complicated.  These two rules pretty much cover it.  So much so, that I have never thought of a third principle that I needed to add.

So there you go:  My version of morality without God.  Your own mileage may vary.

𓐵

A Party of One

Post-Election Thoughts (2020 Version)

I have always been very interested in politics and have followed political affairs closely.  But as I have gotten older, I find that I am less and less interested.  I still find politics interesting, but I have become less invested in all of it.  How is this possible?

I think this is primarily because I don't have a party.  I do not belong to any political party.  I have no political home.  Why is this?

Well, there is at least one thing that is so disturbing to me about each party that it precludes my membership.  Let's take them in turn.

Republicans  While the Republicans talk good fiscal policies, they are much less interested in implementing them.  This includes both when they are in power and when they are not.  And I just cannot abide the religious right.  They are ill-informed and mean-spirited.  And the Republican social policies are set by the religious right.  In fact, the only thing the Republicans consistently get correct is foreign policy.

Democrats  While I pretty much agree with their social policies, I just cannot abide their fiscal policies or their foreign policies.  What's more, it seems like there is a progressive element with totalitarian tendencies taking over the Democratic party.  These people do not really support the First Amendment.

Greens & Socialists & Communists  I cannot think of anything to support here.  In fact, I find most of their policies just loathsome.

Libertarians  Which brings us finally to the Libertarians.  I think they largely get social policies and fiscal policies correct.  But they are absolute children on foreign policies.

Of course, there are a raft of individual issues which preclude my membership in the parties.  For instance, the Republican position on abortion and the Democrat position on the Second Amendment.  But I am not a single-issue voter.  I cannot be a Democrat only because of their stance on abortion any more than I can be a Republican only because of their stance on the Second Amendment.

And there can be lots of nuance around these issues.  I have written before about the Second Amendment.  So here, let me use abortion as an example.  Roe v. Wade is the most shamefully dishonest Supreme Court decision in the last fifty years.  In fact, I would argue that abortion is not a constitutional issue at all.  It is okay if you think that it is.  But even though I am pro-choice, I am not your political ally and I cannot be a member of your political party.

I am no fan of European governments.  But one advantage of their parliamentary systems is that they allow for the participation of multiple parties and easier formation of new parties.  So it is much more likely that an independent thinker can find a political home and political allies.  And actually participate.

In the United States, I am a party of one.  And I won't get far with that.  Sure, I pick the least-worst candidate, and give him or her my vote.  But it is far from satisfying.  And after a while, years and decades, it becomes demoralizing.  And perhaps pointless.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of the two-party system.  And I don't really think it is possible to get rid of it.  But surely we must recognize that this binary choice leads to gridlock and animosity and distrust.

Here's a little thought experiment for you:  Imagine if the Greens and the Socialists and the Libertarians and perhaps something along the lines of the Conservative Party of New York could all consistently muster say two to three percent of the vote and hold similar numbers of congressional seats.  Then the two major parties would be forced to cut deals with at least one smaller party to get anything done.

The small parties would be a lot more important and hence attract members.  They would be the deal makers.  And the large parties could lobby for their support rather than resort to gridlock or bipartisan fluff.  I think such a situation would attract new parties as well, as other currently independently-minded people come together under their own platforms.

I realize that this is impossible in the United States.  Each race is independent, winner take all, and we do not vote for slates of candidates.  Therefore one of the two major parties is basically assured of winning each and every race.  So I don't foresee any real change to the two-party system.  But it is interesting to consider the possibilities.

As someone pointed out after the 2016 election, there is something seriously wrong with a system that produces Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, perhaps the two worst people in the country, as the two major party nominees.  And personally, I don't think 2020 was any better.

If the Covid crisis has demonstrated anything, it is that we live in a kakistocracy – at all levels of government.  Surely we have the worst political class in the history of our nation.  By this I mean not only politicians, but also bureaucrats, academics, and especially journalists.  The 2020 election just confirms this state of affairs.

The deterioration of our nation, of our society, and of civilization itself, continues.

𓐵