Does an Atheist Necessarily Adhere to Moral Relativism or Nihilism?
Morality often evokes debates about its nature, with many questioning whether it can be objective or if it inherently involves subjectivity. For those examining the relationship between a belief in god and morality, the question of whether an atheist can hold to objective morality arises. This article aims to clarify these points and examine whether it is possible for atheists to subscribe to objective morality, or if they inherently fall into moral relativism or nihilism.
Understanding Morality: Theoretical Context
Morality, by definition, requires the involvement of at least two subjects: a morally capable agent performing an action and a conscious individual who is the recipient of the action, whether as a victim or a beneficiary. Without both parties, the concept of morality does not apply. This fundamental requirement implies that morality is a relational construct, not an absolute or objective entity.
Furthermore, the claim that morality cannot be objective across any worldview is widely accepted among philosophers and ethicists. This is because morality is contingent on a set of beliefs, values, and social norms that are subject to change over time and vary from one society to another. Concepts of right and wrong, thus, are not timeless and immutable but are subject to revision and cultural shifts.
Objective vs. Subjective Morality
The discussion of whether morality can be objective often centers around two core definitions: one that views morality as social rules and values designed to govern conduct, and another that perceives it as ethical guidelines ordained by a deity. Both definitions present challenges when it comes to objectivity.
For those who define morality as social rules and values, it is clear that these are not fixed across time and are subject to change. For instance, social norms regarding gender roles, marriage, and weaponry have all shifted over time, demonstrating that moral codes are not eternal truths but can evolve with societal advancements.
Similarly, if morality is defined as divine commandments, it still does not guarantee objectivity. Laws and commandments handed down by a deity remain subjective from that deity's perspective, and there is no inherent obligation for human beings to align their beliefs with any divine will. This perspective emphasizes the human interpretation and application of divine commands, which can vary widely among different religious communities.
Moral Neutrality and Its Applications
Atheists, who assert that gods do not exist, would argue that morality is not dependent on theism. The role of society in shaping and codifying ethical behavior helps illustrate this point. Societal norms and values are the foundation of ethical frameworks, and changes in these norms reflect the dynamic nature of morality.
Society adopts and enforces moral codes, often codifying them into laws. For example, concepts like the sanctity of life, the principle of non-harm, and the right to property are integral components of various legal systems. These principles are not divine decrees but are the result of collective human agreements and adaptations to the needs and experiences of the community.
It is also important to consider the conduct of adherents of different faiths. While theists may claim to adhere to God's moral standards, their actions do not always align. Higher rates of incarceration among theist populations, higher divorce rates among theist groups, and incidents of moral transgressions like pedophilia and cover-ups suggest that adherence to any singular moral code, imposed by a deity or society, is not foolproof.
Conclusion
The debate around whether an atheist can subscribe to objective morality hinges on the definitions of morality one chooses. If morality is considered as social rules and values, then it is inherently subjective and varies over time. If it is viewed as divine commandments, then it remains subjective from a human perspective. Both viewpoints support the notion that morality is a construct of human societies, not an absolute or objective truth.
There is no inherent need for atheists to gravitate towards moral relativism or nihilism. Instead, morality can be seen as a socially constructed framework that evolves over time, reflecting the values and needs of its adherents. Understanding this perspective helps dispel the notion that atheism equates to moral relativism or nihilism, reinforcing the idea that morality, when based on societal consensus, can be both relevant and adaptable.
By recognizing the dynamic and subjective nature of morality, individuals can engage in meaningful discussions about ethical behavior without the burden of adhering to rigid, unchanging moral codes.