QUESTION NINE

9. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with "material from the reading" (see Pain internet article hyperlinked on syllabus; Sartre, Kierkegaard and many other philosophers can fit here).

i personally think there is no logical impossibility in saying that an atheist can be moral. i mean, everyone can be moral, and for the most part of it, religion almost has nothing to do with morality. with this in mind, i say that a theist notion of ethics is no more superior or inferior than an that of an atheist. despite being a religious person, i make the claim that being moral does not mean being religious, nor being religion means being moral. in fact, there are plenty religious characters out there who are not moral, and non-religious characters out there who are moral.

being moral to me, is not something the involves religion. of course, religion promotes being moral, but religion is not the only one promoting that; society itself promotes being moral. if one goes around killing and raping people, it doesn't require a theist to say that such action is immoral. even an atheist can say the same thing. what eventually leads one to choose being moral, as opposed to being immoral, is not religion, but society. in most if not all society, immoral behavior is never accepted. this is what then promotes morality; one wants to be accepted in the society, one does not want to be outcasted. immoral behavior generally causes one to be outcasted from the society, and as social beings, one needs to be in a society. with this logic, one would choose being moral over being immoral. also, everyone's desire for a peaceful environment also drives one to choose being moral, since immoral behavior often leads to unpeacefulness.

if so, then why do people have religion? if being a theist is not any different morally than being an atheist, then why would one want to be theist? well, religion has another incentive for one to be moral, that is the kingdom of heaven. in general, those who are morally good will go to heaven and have eternal life, and those who are morally evil will go to hell and have eternal death. this becomes another incentive for one to be moral, as opposed to atheists, who have no notion of heaven versus hell and thus have no sense of reward or punishment from being moral or immoral.

the required reading, the article by thomas paine, is a bit hard to accept for me, even after putting aside all of my religious sense. it seems, to me at least, that paine is not a big fan of peace. he claims that "there is no end to retaliation," yet he argues that it is "morally and physically impossible" to retaliate evil with good. now, violence is inarguably the nature of human. if one keeps retaliating violence with violence ---as the old saying goes, "an eye for an eye,"--- when will the violence end? when will be able to live in peace? even without the doctrine of christianity, i still claim one should not continue the act of revenge, because if one does, then this world will have no more people left on it since people will just keep killing each other out of vengeance.

paine also claims that to love voluntarily without a motive is morally and physically impossible. now, what is the motive for atheist like paine to love? in christianity, the motive is clear: it's the doctrine. but for non believers like paine, what is the motive to love voluntarily? apparently paine forgot to mention about what his motive is in his essay. putting aside religion, i still claim that nothing can be build from involuntary love. if one keeps expecting something in return, in the end it will be like a trade, ruled with specific laws, not love.