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.