Atheists: Please Stop Talking About Morality In Absolutist Terms

There are no universal morals or ethics. It sickens me when atheists speak as though there were. It is a total cop-out. I understand that it can be difficult to discuss societal ideals without the context of right and wrong, but if you want to live in reality you simply must learn to do so. Morality is a human construct; it shifts like the winds. This need not be a problem unless you are a dogmatic, doctrinal demagogue. Whatever the percentage of theists who fit that description, the percentage of atheists is at least as high.

As for you theists, do not think that you have just picked up some free points. The basis for your system of morality is even shakier. Just because you have an ancient book that spells it out for you doesn’t make it any more real. At least (some) atheists take the time to explain the evolutionary utility of a system of right and wrong. You simply invoke God, as you do for everything else. So hush.

Back to the atheists: stop it. No, seriously, fucking stop doing it, please. It is exceedingly embarrassing to those of us who understand that the concept of morality was invented out of whole cloth and, moreover, who feel no need to invoke morality to explain why we hold various political positions. When you show theists that you need morals as much as they do, you make yourselves look like abject fools and, sadly, this is projected onto the rest of us, by those even bigger fools who believe that atheism is a cohesive “worldview.”

If you think it is inconsistent for me to ask you to view morality as I do, even as I deny such a cohesion, imagine how inconsistent you appear as you count off the planks of secular naturalism on nine fingers, then poke into the ether with the tenth, pretending to point to “morality.”

The Silver Rule

The so-called “Golden Rule” is something that most theists and non-theists seem to agree is a Good Thing, but I hope that people will not invoke that “rule” in their dealings with me.

Simply put, the Golden Rule says:

Treat others in the same manner that you would like to be treated.

Since I do not know how you would like to be treated, I do not know if I would like to be treated in the same manner. So the Golden Rule makes me a bit leery.

The Silver Rule, on the other hand, carries no such risk. It says:

Do not treat others in any manner that you would not like to be treated.

If you would rather that something not be done to you, it is reasonable to presume that I would not want it done to me; and even if I would, no direct harm is done by you not giving me what I want.

There is also the “Platinum Rule,” which says that we should treat others however they want to be treated; this sounds nice, but it is unreasonable, I think, because it would allow others to make arbitrary and selfish demands on us. Even if they agreed to reciprocate in kind, there is no guarantee that they would be capable of doing so, whereas everyone is able to meet the demands of the Silver Rule.

Note to Vegetarians

The argument for vegetarianism on ethical grounds is a logical fallacy, because it pretends that there are no instances where one could consume an animal without killing it (or having it killed). This is clearly false: one could consume an animal which has died of natural causes, for example. Note that some vegetarians employ similar scenarios to justify their use of animal products (e.g., leather shoes), and rightly so.

Instead of arguing for vegetarianism on ethical grounds, vegetarians should instead be arguing against the killing of animals on ethical grounds. This may provide them with less opportunity to evangelize their dietary choices, although it need not, if they can work vegetarianism into the conversation in a non-fallacious manner (i.e., if they simply present vegetarianism as one option in a grab-bag of assorted lifestyle choices which might reduce human impact on other species).

In short: vegetarianism precludes the eating of meat; an ethical stance against the killing of animals does not.