Humanist Ethics

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Where do atheists get their ethics and morals? First off, that is the wrong question. As I have already pointed out, atheist only tells you what someone is not. So for the question to have meaning, it must refer to a positive position, not a negative one. Most atheists are humanists, myself included, so that is the group we will be discussing, aka secular humanists.

In Sam Harris’ video that I shared a few weeks ago, he suggested that morality is or should be based on promoting human and animal wellbeing. I think this is ultimately where most humanists base their morality. It really is just an extension of the Golden Rule that has permeated human civilization for millennia. So let’s look at a few examples of how this relates to the real world:

We should help our neighbors. If your neighbor is trying to unload a heavy couch by himself, offer a hand.

We should give people fair and equal treatment, regardless of any distinction that may divide people, such as national origin, race, age, sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, or any other difference you can find. Obviously this applies to jobs and government services, but this should extend to all rights and privileges afforded to citizens and residents of this great nation, yes, even marriage. It wasn’t all that long ago that people of different races couldn’t marry in much of the nation, and it wasn’t guaranteed until 1967. Yet it seems that in most of the US there is still one differentiation here that is discriminated against in this arena.

We should reduce suffering and promote healthy successful lives through medical advances, education, and charity. Scientific research is what has brought about the medicines we have today, this must continue. Comprehensive education is essential to give people a fair chance at success. And charity is a great way to give people that helping hand they need to start pulling themselves out of the squaller.

We should treat our planet responsibly so as to allow future generations the same privileges that we enjoy. Christianity has promoted an idea that the earth is ours to subdue, a view that is often distorted into thinking its ours to abuse. The belief in Christ’s second coming or the rapture or any other divine intervention in the coming years and decades has promoted a short sightedness about conservation. We need to focus on renewable resources, curb population growth, and reduce our impact on the environment if we want our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren to have a place to live.

In short, we should treat others how we would like to be treated, whether they live across the street, across the planet, or even across the eons.

There is a lot more, but I think you get the hint. Humanists have arrived at their moral positions through a reasoned analysis of observed consequences of actions. If you really want to simplify it, I want to be treated with dignity and respect and helped out when I need it, so I should pass that on to others.

It should not be surprising that most Christians are also humanists, whether they know it or not. So when it comes down to it, our morals are not that different. However, since atheist don’t have an afterlife, there is a greater impetus to make the here and now as good as it can be. We are simply good for goodness sake.

Here’s the upcoming post schedule:
Wednesday – A little more of my story, “Out of the Fog”
Friday – Some satire of my own composition.
Sunday – Is there such a thing as objective morality?

2 Comments


  1. Nice post Dustin! But I'm not quite sure I understand you in a couple of places. Now, I personally do not find it helpful when someone disagrees with something without offering an alternative solution, so until I get more of my writing done, I will refrain from several comments. But I do have a few questions that would help add to my understanding.

    If I understand you correctly, you classify yourself as a humanist, and the term atheist simply refers to the fact that you don't believe in God. Pardon my ignorance, but besides humanism, which other world views do atheists commonly subscribe to? (That is, if you happen to know. I know that my knowledge of theism is confined largely to Christianity, and even more narrowly, to Seventh-day Adventism.) What do those other views use as a basis for morality?

    Also, do most humanists consider the Golden Rule as a cornerstone for their beliefs? Is it generally considered to be compatible with evolutionary teaching?

    Have you read Ayn Rand's work? I've only read Atlas Shrugged, but I've often thought that if I was to design a form of government, I might borrow heavily from her philosophy. The protagonist's modus operandi is summarized by this quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Would this be one of the negative versions of the Golden Rule? The emphasis seems to be on fairness, as Rand talks consistently on trading value for value; that is, no one gets a free ride. The great deficiency I see in this system is that it doesn't account for the margins of society – the orphans, the widows, the incapacitated, and the infirm. How do your beliefs allow you to balance justice and mercy?

    Well, I droned on much longer than I intended to. Sorry. I really will work on my own writing.


  2. There are atheists who are utilitarians, deontologists, teleologists, hedonists, and probably a few other positions. Humanism and utilitarianism are probably the most popular.

    I had thought about doing a post about the evolution of ethics, but I had forgotten. Thanks for reminding me. I'll answer in short here, they are compatible because reciprocity is beneficial to forming a community and communities are beneficial to survival.

    Obviously you read way too much and I read way too little. That would probably qualify as a version of the "silver rule" or maybe the "bronze rule."

    I'll be getting into justice and mercy in next week's post on freewill vs determinism.

Comments are closed.