Utilitarian Moral Theory and an Atheist

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that which suggests that we should seek the overall happiness in whatever we do. John Stuart Mill describes this moral theory as being one in which we measure "pleasures" and "pains." The goal is to increase the amount of "pleasure," and minimize the amount of "pain" to be experienced by all individuals, societies, the environment, etc. who will be involved in the decision being made, whether directly or indirectly. A simple example is as follows:

A man is considering whether or not he should divorce his wife. Under traditional moral theories, divorce would often be perceived as being an immoral action in most contexts. For example, the Bible outlaws divorce in most circumstances. The Bible is also said to be a source of absolute morality, so one can not get around the fact. On Utilitarian principles, a man may be able to morally justify divorce from his wife. He examines the situation and becomes aware that his divorce will not render her poor. He sees that more pain then pleasure will be brought to himself and to her if they continue being together indefinitely. He still plans to pay child support and be civil friends with her.

While this may be a simple analogy, the moral implication is fairly clear: it is acceptable to get a divorce in this scenario under Utilitarian moral principles. What makes this moral theory more interesting is that, in another more painful scenario, one could make the claim that divorce is immoral. This lead me to my next point: Utilitarian morality is subjective. It is a relative morality which does not contain absolutes.

How does this relate to atheism and morality, then? The purpose of this post is to reveal that there are many moral theories. When discussing morality with religious individuals, the perception of morality is generally one that is absolute and based strictly off church doctrine. While I would not say Utilitarian moral theory is inherently any better or worse then the morality of any given religion, I do propose it as an alternative that is generally viewed as, at least, relatively valid.

Do you have any thoughts on the topic of Utilitarianism or any variety of moral theories? Sound off in the comments section below.

Atheism and Morality - Is Atheism Immoral?

It is a fairly common notion that atheists are "immoral." It is my opinion that this is a stigma placed on atheists, and is the result of ignorance regarding what atheism really is. For those unaware, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. There are no inherent beliefs tagged along with it. Atheists, without having much ground to stand on, formulate opinions and viewpoints that often contradict traditional and religious ideals. If to be immoral, one must act against the status quo; then perhaps atheism is inherently immoral. If morality is a much more complex issue, and I believe it is, then making the argument that atheists are, at least, morally neutral is relatively simple. As a note: there is no possible way I would make an argument concluding that atheists are morally superior to any other group. This is simply not the case. Additionally, no other group is morally superior to atheists either. If an individuals feels this way, then they are simply making this claim out of ignorance to the variety of moral theories available to work off of (Kantian moral theory, utilitarian moral theory, feminist moral theory, theological moral theory, etc.).

The basis for religious and societal views that atheists are immoral is very much based in historical perceptions of atheists, and by extension pagans.

The English word "atheism" has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:

Atheism

Noun.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

3. Godlessness; immorality.

(Quote is taken from creationtheory.org)

The fact that under atheism's definition is listed immorality is how we can begin to understand how this perception has slipped into mainstream thinking. This is a rather unfortunate thing, considering how atheists by and large are fairly productive members of society like anyone else. Atheists are only immoral if we hold them to religious standards as dictated by the Bible or the Koran (among other holy books). It is not fair to pigeonhole atheists into the moral code as dictated by religion, considering there are many other "moral avenues" which can be taken. For example, I consider myself an adherent to utilitarian moral theory. While it is not perfect, it seems to be most effective for my own day to day life when I make moral choices. I will elaborate further on utilitarian moral theory and it's relation to atheism in another post, as it would require much more space then I wish to dedicate to it in this post.

The final issue related to the morality of atheists is as follows: with what evidence can anyone successfully make this claim that atheists are inherently immoral? From my own research, there is very little to support this claim. Studies which suggest this are statistically insignificant or are significantly flawed in their data collection methods. While one could certainly argue that individuals atheists are immoral (which is reasonable enough), the entire group is not inherently immoral just because they are atheists. That last statement is most important to the purpose of this article: being an atheist does not imply one is immoral.

On Death and Dying for Atheists

One topic that consistently drives me to think about the world I live within is that all too ever-present topic: death.

Death and dying are not particularly desirable experiences for the average individual. Most of us live our lives as if we are immortal, which is fairly ironic considering how every present our mortality really is. Consider even our most basic, instinctual responses from day to day. As you drive down the street and someone cuts you off, you feel your heart begin to race. This is a very quick response. You are pumped full of adrenaline and can make split-second decisions which allow you to get out of the way and avoid a collision with the other driver. This is nature's way of allowing your mortality to communicate directly with you.

For atheists, death is a topic often discussed, though with little to actually discuss. The typical belief is that we simple die and decompose. "Ash to ash, dust to dust." While these words are found both in the Bible and in the Koran, they apply most accurately to atheists in that there is no return to a conscious physical form. The question then becomes: why is the nature of death so important to atheists? Let me speak for myself on this topic as it relates to Christianity (i.e. my upbringing). My own personal fear of death is one that stems from the Christian traditional concept of Hell and the afterlife in general. While I am for all intent and purpose an atheist, I have been psychologically conditioned to fear death on account of the images portrayed of the "after life." If one does not fear the imagery found in Dante's Inferno and Gustave Dore's illustrations of that book, then you are fortunate enough to have not been brought up around the notion of eternal damnation I am sure. Allow me to further examine Christians and how they manage thoughts of death and dying, and analyze how they rub off on society and by extension every individual who is mortal and has a rational fear of death.

Christians impose their own belief on other individuals when it comes to topics related to death, even on those who are not saved. The belief in god (whether rational or not) provides inherent comfort in times of hardship, especially when this belief is fundamental to an individual's lifestyle. When a religious individual loses someone close to them, they immediately will project their perception of their own death onto the recently deceased. For example, a Christian will likely say one of the following:

1. "They are in Heaven."

or

2. "They are in Hell."

There are no alternatives from a Christian's perspective. There is no notion of a simple, natural death where one only goes into the ground eternally. This is perhaps very obvious, but simultaneously very startling. As a result of this dichotomous way of thinking about death, many Christians will surround themselves with like-minded individuals so as to minimize the pain of losing someone who is not a believer in their faith. In all honesty, who would want to believe in something so serious as this and have to live with themselves after seeing a non-Christian depart this world for one of eternal damnation in Hell? I can think of no sympathetic or compassionate person who would desire this. It is only the makings of an inherently evil individual, and perhaps by extension an inherently evil deity, who allows for such knowledge to grace the mind. As such, Christians distance themselves from non-Christians for safety and comfort. This is the first manner of dealing with death.

By extension to this point, Christians have an easier time with death when their loved one's are Christians themselves. The pain and burden of death is relieved when one is confronted with the notion that their loved one is in Heaven (a place of eternal happiness in the presence of God himself). This is an every present memory in my own mind. My sister died at age 4, when I was ~10 years old. At the time I was a "Christian" (as if a 10 year old can honestly make that decision for themselves). Many people around me, all with good intentions, told me "she is in Heaven." For a time, this satisfied me and was just about the only comfort I could grasp. In recent years I have moved away from Christianity, and have come to the relative realization that my sister is just in the dirt. It is disheartening, though I would much rather deal with reality as opposed to clinging to a (highly desirable) fantasy.

How does this relate to atheism? The answer is simple. Christianity has set up a dichotomy with regards to death and the dying process. After one dies, one goes to either the positive afterlife (Heaven) or the negative afterlife (Hell). Christians are able to cope with death fairly successfully, and often have a large support group (friends, the church) to help in addition to this. They are comforted by the thought of Heaven as well, as one would expect. Atheists do not have this latter comfort. While it is not completely rational to fear death when it is just an empty void contained within the Earth, it is a very lonely experience for an atheist. While we all in some way or another "die alone," when one "dies" with God on their mind; they are likely to be comforted. My aunt recently passed away from cancer, and I stood by her deathbed almost like a spectator. She was comfortable with her passing, though. She was a Christian and did not seem to fear the dying experience. Maybe this is the result of age, but as far as I am concerned; I am an atheist and I fear death more then I would expect your average Christian to fear it. Christianity imposes concepts of absolute truth value as well, which have seeped into mainstream thought, media (music, television, film, artwork), and so forth. The conception of Hell is not one exclusively found in Christianity, but this is where many of us come to know about it. Hell is the image perfectly spun to contain human fear on a canvas. Even as an atheist, I fear Hell and eternal suffering. At the end of this article, I cannot help but return to the problem of evil as is often discussed in theological and philosophical circles.

If you have any comments or would like to start a civil debate, feel free!

Does being an atheist imply that one will be immoral?

Since leaving Christianity, one question that has plagued my newly reformed mind is: what motivates me to act in a moral fashion? The answer is not a particularly simple one.

Before I explore this question in more depth, I must make you aware that my former attachment with religion is one that bound me in a shroud of ignorance, fear, and often a lack of desire to see viewpoints outside of my own. This is a fairly common occurrence as far as religion as a social device is concerned. That is not too say that all religious individuals are ignorant, but the nature of religion itself is one that can lead to a sensation of being blind to other world views; especially when many of those viewpoints are deemed inherently "wrong" and by extension "Satanic" or "sinful." Speaking in terms of mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam, a line has been drawn in the sand. If one crosses said line, then they are often viewed by their respective churches as acting in accordance with the devil. The most unfortunate observance of scenarios related to this is one a few of us may know all too well. I have seen religious men and woman (from my former church) who were unwilling to pick up books that discuss topics juxtaposed to the nature of their religious ideology. My simple observance is this: if simply reading is "wrong" (or by extension sinful in the eyes of God), then how can one rationally conclude that basing one's morality based on God himself is acceptable? If we are not allowed to view the world through any other lenses then our own bias, then how can saying "morality is only found in the absolute truth of God's existence" express a reasonable sentiment without having an in depth, personal dispute over which moral theories are superior and inferior?

Of course, let me again be clear, not all religious people act like this. However, this is a remarkable observation I noticed in my younger year and is important to note for the sake of this blog.