Atheism and deontology

[Jebus]

The question of consequentialism and deontology keeps popping up in this forum so I thought I'd give it a thread of its own.

First of all, I am curious if there are any atheist deontologists. If so, what do they see as the "source" of their moral values?

Considering how awful so many people are at making value judgments, I find it somewhat worrisome that a growing number of people (atheists) make their moral decisions based on their perception of overall benefit. Even more worrisome is that the issue of how much added weight should be given to the acting agents personal benefit is largely up to the acting agent.

Incidentally, I consider myself a consequentialist. I'm just not sure I want other people to be consequentialists. I also don't want them to be religious. Hence the dilemma.

[miniboes]

Why would you not want other people to be consequentialists?

[Jebus]

Why would you not want other people to be consequentialists?

Considering how awful so many people are at making value judgments, I find it somewhat worrisome that a growing number of people (atheists) make their moral decisions based on their perception of overall benefit. Even more worrisome is that the issue of how much added weight should be given to the acting agents personal benefit is largely up to the acting agent.

[brimstoneSalad]

Considering how awful so many people are at making value judgments, I find it somewhat worrisome that a growing number of people (atheists) make their moral decisions based on their perception of overall benefit. Even more worrisome is that the issue of how much added weight should be given to the acting agents personal benefit is largely up to the acting agent.

I've brought this up a number of times in discussion with Volenta. It's a pretty serious problem for Utilitarianism in practice, but not necessarily for consequentialism itself. The biggest issue being personal benefit.

Is it not only OK, but morally right, for me to hurt others to benefit myself if I benefit ever so slightly more than they suffer? I don't agree. That's just slightly constrained selfishness.
If morality is anything, it's the concern for the interests of the other, as apart from self; essentially altruism. Calculate harm and benefit excluding the satisfaction of your own selfish interests, and you not only get much closer to morality, but you also eliminate a vast majority of the bias.

Personal situation is still relevant, but I think that comes in with regards to practical justification, rather than some root good in the equation.

None of these things, and in particular concepts of justification, should be determined without peer-review from impartial sources. If you have a serious moral dilemma, you should ask others. Legitimate morality requires a clear head and unbiased approach; if you aren't capable of being unbiased, as will often be the case, you need to ask for assistance. Making it up as you go and substituting your whim in for actual morality is immoral.

In short, you have to approach it like a scientist, and that means using the scientific method to control for those biases which otherwise mess everything up and make it impossible to maintain a solid grasp upon objective reality. When the only measuring device we have easy access to is the human mind, you have to find one that doesn't have a personal stake in the outcome.

EDIT: That said, consequentialism can also give us rule sets. Rules we follow because on average the consequences are better than not following those rules. Rules we follow because people are incapable of making the right decisions by themselves due to bias, but that we recognize are guidelines to help us and that must be sensitive to the situation, and not absolute (as in the case of deontology).