Letter: Atheist actions can be selfless
Thursday, March 27, 2008; 12:00 AM
I'm writing in response to the column, "Defending morality in an atheist's culture is challenging" (CT, March 25). The author implies that a lack of faith in God translates to apathy toward others' well being.

The author fails to understand the influence of society and evolution on altruism. It's obvious that cooperation is the best method for progress -- selfishness only works to a certain degree before everyone becomes selfish, benefiting nobody. Scenario-simulations show that cooperation always leads to the most success for groups. Just ask vampire bats, which actually regurgitate blood they've foraged during the night for a friend whose hunting was less fruitful. Next time, if the first bat gets no food, his friend can return the favor.

Giving up one's seat and making sacrifices for another are explained through societal norms and evolutionary mechanisms. Society expects us to act a certain way, so it becomes ingrained into our minds to let an old lady have our seat. We make sacrifices for our kin because evolution wants our genes to flourish. If I die so that my two brothers survive, then there will be two sets of my genes, rather than just the one. My potential sacrifice for friends who are unrelated to me can be explained by my evolutionary triggers backfiring, which would encourage me to save everyone.

As for losing rights to atheist majorities, Norway was rated the most peaceful country in the world (the U.S. was 96th), as well as the least religious in Western Europe. In contrast, Hitler was Catholic, and Stalin Eastern Orthodox.

Finally, I argue that atheists possess stronger morality than theists. With no fear of God, our sacrifices are more selfless. Few of us believe in an afterlife, so we cherish the only life we get more. We put greater value on human life because, in general, we don't think that any "soul" floats off someplace.

Andrew Shutterly
sophomore, psychology and Spanish

You might be interested in... Related Topics:
Posted by: Lee G. at Jul 1 I should have proofread what I wrote below. This is what I should have posted: The sacrifice of an atheist can not always be as selfless as that of one who believes in God. Those who have faith that they will go to heaven are usually far more likely to risk their own life to save someone else. If you cherish your own life and think that once it is over, then it is over, you will not gladly rescue a stranger in a dangerous situation. The more life threatening the situation, and the less emotional attachment to the person in danger, the less likely it is that anyone, especially an atheist, would act in a heroic manner. An atheist would not do what was right in an extreme situation if they'd be giving up their life for that of another. Therefore atheists do not posses stronger morality than theists. The chink in their amour is their lack of faith. No matter what, they must protect their own life because it is all they have. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lee G. at Jul 1 The sacrifice of an atheist can not always be as selfless as that of one who believes in God. Those who have faith that they will go to heaven are usually far more likely to risk their own life to save someone else. If you cherish your own life and think that once it is over, then you will not gladly rescue a stranger is a dangerous situation. The more life threatening the situation, and the less emotional attachment to the person in danger, the less likely it is that anyone, especially an atheist, would act in a heroic manner. An atheist would not do what was right no matter what the risks were to self. Therefore atheists do not posses stronger morality than theists. The chink in their amour is their lack of faith that, no matter what, they must protect their own life because it is all they have. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John B. Hodges at Apr 10 (JBH) Comment for Kyle Minor: Let me stipulate for the sake of argument: a "good" person is a desirable neighbor, desirable from the point of view of people who wish to live in peace and raise families. Them it's clear why motivations are relevant to judging the morality of a person or action; if an action has bad consequences but was done with good intentions, the person may be excused, or their guilt may be mitigated to some degree. Likewise if an act with good consequences was done with venal intent; we applaud the act but retain reservations about the person, thinking their character is less likely to do good actions in the future. ... More generally, religion teaches a false theory of morality, that equates morality with obeying the alleged will of God, as reported by some human being, some self-proclaimed "prophet". But morality is not obedience, and obedience is not morality. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason S at Apr 1 I understand what you are trying to say, Andrew. However, I think anyone who has ever been a theist can attest to the fact that for the most part, thinking about what god wants doesn't automatically factor into every decision they make. Similarly, atheists don't automatically select their actions based on the most morally logical conclusion - sometimes they do good out of selfishness. I would agree that while doing good for the sake of doing good is the higher road, it is not one that is exclusive to atheism. To say that atheists are morally superior to theists is a very sweeping statement, and cannot really be backed up (bare in mind that I am saying this as an atheist myself). Incidently, the morality argument has a great deal to do with god because if the theists are right, then you and I only have a sense of right and wrong because god gave it to us. Convince the theist that god does not exist, and their motivation to be moral changes signifigantly. Also, I believe Allison's original argument was based on the assumption that why one thing is right and another is wrong can't be explained in a materialistic context, not that atheists morally inferior. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Apr 1 I meant "the entire morality argument has nothing whatsoever to do with *the existence* of God," by the way. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Apr 1 Jason, the entire morality argument has nothing whatsoever to do with god (as being moral doesn't require a god, obviously). It has to do with Allison's original letter that came off as anti-atheist, portraying them as being unable to hold or defend their morals, which, to me, makes it seem that she believes theists are superior in morality. I was saying that if anyone is "superior" in morality, it has to be atheists, because they have less of a reason to be moral. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Apr 1 Kyle, if you claim to worship an all-good god who tells you to do good, and that he is the creator and everything, and then you turn your back on him to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you are told to do, then yes, I think that you are doing more wrong than an atheist. A theist is taking that extra step of opposing his all-good, all-powerful god in order to go out of his way to do some evil. He's jumping hurdles to do wrong. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason S at Mar 31 The whole discussion of who is more moral seems like a moot point to me. Even if there were a proper census taken that was able to determine whether theists or atheists were more moral based on actions & motivation, it would say nothing about which belief (or lack thereof) is true. The fact that there are both moral theists and moral atheists shows that it is not the ideologies themselves that control one's ability to tell right from wrong. I don't really see why it should matter if atheists were 15% more moral than theists or vice versa; it would not in any way validate the truth one idea over the other. Being more moral doesn't make someone more right - in fact, the existence of morality on both sides of the board proves that one can be completely delusional (for one side must be) yet remain perfectly moral. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 31 That simply doesn't make any sense. If God tells me to do good, and I opt not to do good (as is my prerogative, per the concept of free will), I fail to see how that makes me any move evil than your 'standard' evildoer - atheist or not. This is where the danger of assessing intention comes into play - it requires a presumption on the part of the judge that a person is acting for this or that reason. The problem is that, while motive can sometimes be inferred or supposed, it cannot necessarily be accurately assessed - why people do what they do is their business. The action is the only thing which can be judged (if anything at all), and so we ought to stick to that. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 31 Only if the theist's god tells him to do evil. If his god tells him to do good, then a theist that commits evil is far, far worse than any atheist. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Geoff Harris at Mar 30 According to your logic, an atheist who does good is much more moral than a theist because of the fact that atheists are not pressured in any way by any god to do good. I can agree with you on that, but only if you agree with me if I say that an atheist who does evil is even less moral than any theist who does the same evil. In other words, sure, we should commend atheists more who do good than theists who do the same good because we know that it's much more likely that their acts are genuine, but we should also punish atheists who do evil more so than theists since we know their actions are also going to be much more genuine too. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 30 There's no objective judge, correct, in my mind, but there is a *standard* that you and I tend to use to judge moral actions. We tend to agree on what is considered moral, so that's the standard that I use. And again, I'm not saying that all atheists are better than all theists. I'm just saying that atheists have fewer reasons to do good things than a theist would, all other things being equal (as in, not a greedy theist against a humanitarian atheist). If you take two equal people, and make one of them a theist and the other an atheist, the atheist has "less of a reason" to do good. Therefore, if they both do the same good, the atheist is, based on our standards of morality, more "good" in his intentions than the theist is. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 29 A valid point, certainly, but it requires a certain amount of presumption on the part of the judge here. This is why I challenge your notion of 'aggregate morality,' under which you claim that atheists are 'more moral' than theists - if you are an atheist, it seems plausible to contend that you probably don't consider there to be an 'objective judge' of moral character, and if you are a theist, you consider God to be that very judge, but His judgment doesn't get passed until after you die. There isn't a means of judging 'why' people act unless they explicitly state their intentions, and as a result such a comparison of aggregate morality is based only on a presumption of faith which may or may not exist in a theist, and a presumption of 'well-intentioned action' which also may or may not exist in a particular atheist. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 29 Kyle, I am not disagreeing with you that the outcome of the person's actions are immoral, or unequally moral to the outcome that someone else reaches. What I am saying is that you can judge the morality of an action AS WELL AS the person doing the action. Atheists and theists can each do an equally moral action, but I'm saying that atheists are more likely to have more moral character, solely due to the fact that they have one less reason for doing the same good thing. If I save a drowning child because I want to be seen as a hero, I would consider myself "less moral" than someone who saved the child's life solely because he wanted the child to live. Both of our actions were great, as it led to the saving of the child's life, but his character is better than mine, because I was acting under less "good" intentions. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 28 But the discussion has taken a different (and in my opinion, better) context since the original column. Let's steer away from Ms. Aldrich's assessments of morality and try to gain a better understanding of where you're coming from - why, exactly, is purity of intention relevant in an assessment of morality? And is it logical to ascribe morality to actions AND to individuals? That is to say, can we really say that saving someone is generally moral, but that a person who saves someone else can still be considered to act immorally based upon his motivation for doing the saving? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 28 I have answered it. Allison originally warned us of the dangers that would arise if there ever was an atheist-majority, because we only believe that we're given rights by men, so we can just as easily take them away and make life a living hell for certain people. She singled out atheists, questioning their morality. Thus, I answered by explaining that atheists and theists might do the same actions, only atheists don't do it because a god told them to. Atheists do good things because they want to do them. That's what I said. The morality of the outcome is the same, but the morality of the person DOING the action is different. Oh, and killing a bunch of innocent people for your kid would be immoral, in my opinion. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 Ok, we've beaten the decision-making process to death here. You've still not answered what I consider to be the central question of this debate, which is what effect, if any, does the motivation of the actor have on the morality of his action? Why is it that someone who acts sincerely acts morally, while someone who acts with ulterior motives acts less morally, if the outcome of the actions are the same? If what you say is true, we measure morality by the intent of the actor - so if I drive my car across a lawn to get my dying kid to a hospital out of compassion for his life(surely a good intention) and in the process run over a handful of people, the moral circumstance is somehow more positive than if I were to take the kid to the hospital without injuring anyone so that I can get the money he owes me. I'm not sure I buy that argument - remember the adage, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions?' I don't mean to say that purity of actions is necessarily inconsequential, but we have to determine some criteria for measuring morality before we can assess one group as 'more moral' than another. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 Margaret: Hitler accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, which is the main thing for Christianity. That he didn't go to Church or Confession doesn't mean that he's any less of a Christian. He was Christian, which is why it's stupid to say that an atheist-majority would be a disaster or threat, because one's religious beliefs don't make that person good or bad. Good people are religious and good people are nonreligious. So are bad people. That's what bothered so many people about Ms. Aldrich's letter, because it was so blatantly attacking atheists, despite her recent statements about 90% of her readers "misinterpreting" her. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 I know that (at least some) theists base part of their decisions on how God would want them to act because I've been told by some that that's how they act. And I do believe in moral relativism. But because we're all living here in Virginia, I presumed that we would be using the morality that most of the developed world operates under as a standard of good behavior. When I tell any of you that Gandhi was a "good" guy, I'm sure that you would all agree with me, because it's very likely that we all have the same sort of idea of morality in mind. So when one of us acts in a specific way that we would define as a "good" way, I say that the atheist is likely to be more "sincere" in his intentions than a theist might be. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 But Mr. Shutterly, you are still emphasizing the presumptive principle that a theist necessarily defers at least part of his decision to God. Without an answer to the underlying question, though - what makes an action moral, the consequence or the motivation - the degree of relevance of your assertion is minimal. An interesting side note - you write on some of the other forums that you effectively believe in moral relativism. Given that morals are, in your opinion, non-absolute, how possibly can there be a means of assessing the aggregate morality of two segments of society? How can you claim one man is more moral than another, if the principle of morality is wholly subjective to begin with? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Margaret Mueller at Mar 27 Just because someone is born into a household that practices a particular faith, or claims a particular faith, does not mean that person practices that particular faith. In the United States where the practice of faith means sitting in a pew on Sunday, most people do not comprehend what it means to 'practice' a way of life. To call Stalin Orthodox, or Hitler Catholic is stretching the concept of being a practicing member of either faith. At least in an Orthodox Church, Stalin would have been refused to participate by the priest, at the peril of his life in the flesh. Fear of God is not the motivation that legitimizes any Christian's action; love of God and all others is. This is what separates Eastern Christianity from Western. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 I give atheists benefit of the doubt because an atheist, by definition, neither believes in nor fears a supreme judge. A theist, by definition, does do both of these, and it will thus play a part in their actions. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 Which leads, necessarily, to a presumption of guilt - the theist must always act under fear of supernatural government, and if such a fear weren't present he would be wholly immoral. There isn't a whole lot of proof to support this (I don't really know of any such proof, in fact) - but it troubles me that you don't give theists the same 'benefit of the doubt' that you extend to atheists when it comes to motivation. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 Because if the fear of God wasn't omnipresent in a theist's life, we don't know if he would still be as "good" as he is. I have heard many theists say, "Without God, why should I refrain from raping and killing people? There's nothing to worry about, and no objective morality! I can do whatever I want then!" That's the assumption I was operating on. With an atheist, we know his intentions. With a theist, we don't know if his intentions are his or his god's. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 Ok, but what makes me more moral than the man acting with the fear of God? Is the desired end state a saved child, or is it a saved child ALONG WITH the right intentions behind it? I'd say that at the end of the day, the reason WHY a person has acted isn't particularly relevant - and many theists agree with this. God demands good works - and so theists do good works. Atheists do good works because they objectively believe them to be the right thing to do. But when all the chips are on the table, the real argument here is about judgment - atheists don't believe that they will ultimately be judged for their actions, and theists believe that such a judgment will occur. Whether or not the judgment occurs or not isn't really relevant - the fact of the matter is, good works are performed. So why exactly is motivation relevant in an aggregate sense, as opposed to the personal sense? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 I said that atheists, as a whole, are more moral. If even one of your members does something for the sole reason of pleasing God, then your group's "net morality" is lower than mine. That is all that I was saying. I did not say that all atheists are more moral, or that atheists are vastly more moral. Just that it can be argued that atheists are more moral on the basis that they have fewer reasons to do something good, but still do just as much good as theists do. And as for your example, if the theist saved the drowning child because he feared God's wrath, then I would say that you are more moral than him, yes. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 That's still pretty presumptive, though. Are theists compelled not to act altruistically? I'd say not - although individual actions may ultimately please God, not every action is necessarily weighed as to its probative value with God. Sometimes an action is just an action - the fact that some theists do things specifically to please God does not mean that ALL theists do things specifically to please God, and consequently your comparison is invalid. An interesting point to explore here is whether or not the morality of an action is affected by its intention - ie, if I rescue a drowning child because I innately feel that it is the right thing to do, am I 'more moral' than someone who saves the child because he feels it will please God? I would submit that the answer is no - ultimately the consequence of the action is that a child was saved, and that the personal motivation of the passer-by who saves him is inconsequential. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 Yes, you can, because many religionists do things according to what they think their God would approve or disapprove of. "I felt a calling by God to go on a mission trip," or "God disapproves of homos3xuality ("s3x" is banned in comments for some reason... )." An atheist would go on a humanitarian mission because he feels that it's the right thing to do. Many religious people might do the same, but some also would do it to make God happy. No atheist would do something to appease a god. They do it for themselves and others. I'm not saying that atheists are waaaay more moral than theists. I'm just saying that, with theists, you throw an extra (large) reason into the equation for why they do the things that they do. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 Mr. Shutterly, you fall into the same trap of which you accuse Ms. Aldrich. The issue she raised was not whether or not atheists are moral, or have morals, but rather, from where do morals come? Why do they exist, and how did they come to exist? The morality of a particular person is exemplified by his own actions in the context of a more generaly conception of morality - to this end, there are theists who are moral and amoral, and there are atheists who are also moral and amoral. The bottom line is, you cannot classify atheists as 'more moral' than theists based on presumptions regarding why a theist does what he does (and a similar presumption as to why an atheist does what he does). Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 27 I claim that atheists have stronger morality because all that influences our decisions is our self. An atheist acts moral because an atheist IS moral (unless he's a jerk, obviously). A religionist might act a certain way ONLY to appease some God character. That detracts from the value of his moral decision. An atheist acts moral because that's how he acts normally. Religionists act moral because that's who they are, AND because of influence from their religion. It also doesn't matter that Hitler didn't act like a "true" Christian. What is a true Christian anyways? Only Jesus was. All Christians fail to live up to Jesus' name, because everyone sins, and all sins are equal. As long as Hitler accepted Jesus as his savior, he's just as "Christian" as anybody else. Also, if you ever read the Bible, you'll see that "true" followers of God commit all sorts of atrocities. And Hitler was brought up because it's a commonly-held myth that he was atheist. However, I need to elaborate on Stalin a bit, because I went to the 300-word limit in my letter, so I couldn't say more. Stalin was RAISED Eastern Orthodox, but I think was atheist later in life. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 27 bxl, if you read the discussion back on the original column and the "column lacked solid facts" response letter, I believe you will see that we are not simply "talking...past each other." Rather, I believe several philosophical questions have emerged from the discussion that have, in fact, led people to at least scratch their heads. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Matt Eldridge at Mar 27 Tony, please refer to Godwin's Law to answer your question about Hitler. (wiki it!) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 27 A religious 'whack'-job? I'm a little confused, bxl, as to from where you draw that conclusion. Does the fact that I consider myself at least somewhat religious automatically disqualify my opinion on matters of theism AND atheism? Does it necessarily imply that I buy into the theology and structure of EVERY religion? This is a discussion forum, and I'm further curious to know why you have deemed it necessary to comment on a letter and a discussion which you yourself claim ought to be easily ignored. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Tony at Mar 27 I agree with the author's initial argument, but why conclude with the claim that atheists are more moral than theists? If the argument is that morality is an inherent outcome of society and evolution, then it applies to all groups in that society. By saying that one group is more moral than another, doesn't that tend to argue against the initial claim? Is the author implying that theists act morally mostly due to the fear of God or is appeasing a creator just an added bonus on top of our hardwiring? On a side note, why do 90% of letters and columns in the CT always refer to Hitler when trying and prove a point? Flag Abuse
Posted by: bxl at Mar 27 Most Christians, and Jews for that matter, don't follow the letter of their own law, otherwise we'd have a lot more stonings. Everyone is aware that more people have been tortured, killed, and now blown up in the name of the torturer/killer/suicide bomber's deity than for any other reason. Kyle is a religious wack-job. Religious discussions like this should be on a clearly marked and easily-removed "religion" page in the paper so that it may be more easily ignored. The teams are picked, both sides are talking apologetically past each other, and nobody's going to read this and go "Gee willikers! I think I'll change my mind about this." Flag Abuse
Posted by: David C at Mar 27 I find it odd that the religious vehemently deny any sort of mass murderer would be part of their religion, even if the mass murderer's upbringing and self declarations suggest otherwise. Who are you to say they aren't part of the religion they claim to be? Many Catholics don't go to mass every Sunday, many Jews don't go to service on Saturdays, yet they still believe themselves to be part of the religion. Just because someone does not follow all the rituals or teachings exactly does not somehow make them not part of that religion. Flag Abuse
Posted by: D. Edward Farrar at Mar 27 Given the number of appalling actions by modern televangelists and religiously motivated terrorists it remains incredible to me that anyone would still try to advance the notion that morality is in any way tied to belief in a god. Nineteen zealous god-believers made 9/11 happen and if anyone believes terrorism has never had a Christian face then why did the KKK choose a flaming crucifix as their symbol? As to Mr. Minor's assertion that "Hitler may have claimed to have been Catholic, but his actions and writings tend to point in a direction that is starkly opposite of what Catholicism teaches", perhaps you should consider that in the 1930s Catholicism taught that anti-Semitism was a virtue? Possibly the only thing we should ever thank the Nazis for is that by their sheer excess the forced almost every religious order on the planet to reconsider their teachings with respect to the Jews and others groups that had been similarly persecuted. Church teachings change, and the pendulum may yet swing back. Please note that in his recent encyclical on the evils of the 20th century, Pope Benedict excoriated atheism but made no mention whatsoever of the Nazis and the other Fascist movements. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Graham Reeves at Mar 27 The Eastern Orthodox don't claim Stalin either. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Michael Alfaro at Mar 27 there is no need to match the "pious" with morality. atheism is not a moral possition it is admitting the obvious. Without evidence the claim of god God or gods is faulty. If you want morality read an ethics book. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 It is fairly petty of you, Mr. Shutterly, to assert that one (incredibly wide) section of society has 'stronger morality' than another. It's true, some atheists act, from an objective standpoint, more morally than some theists - and it's true also that some theists act more morally than some atheists. You've fallen into the same trap, with your assertion, that has caused the controversy in the first place. You need to take caution in asserting that theists are necessarily ignorant simpletons who are wholly predisposed to individual concerns about their 'final destinations.' And for the record, correlation does not imply causality. Hitler may have claimed to have been Catholic, but his actions and writings tend to point in a direction that is starkly opposite of what Catholicism teaches. Try to avoid classifying religions by what people have done in the NAME of religion. Flag Abuse
Add your opinion
Copyright © 2008 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | print edition | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» VT webmail
 » VT People Search
» My VT / Hokie Spa
 » VT Blackboard
» gmail