When analyzing the Declaration of Independence in my government class recently, several students began having an interesting cross-classroom conversation about whether atheists could believe in the kind of "unalienable rights" that are "endowed by their creator." One of these students took the staunch position that atheists could not possibly have any valid foundation for morality since they don't believe in a god or gods. This statement echoed in my head for quite a while. It wasn't the first time I had pondered the fascinating subject of morality, but this time, I was faced with just how arbitrary it seemed to claim that you have a "more valid" foundation for morality than anyone else.

People who say that atheists can't have any justifiable moral foundation think that belief in God is the only intellectually valid basis for morality. Many apologists, theologians and philosophers argue this point deftly and passionately; often inquiring how people who think that humanity is just a byproduct of evolutionary processes could possibly believe in the existence of any metaphysical moral system. However, many atheists do claim to have bases for believing in particular moral systems. They often cite utilitarianism, humanism, Kant's categorical imperative, etc. as their foundations for morality.

The problem is that people's beliefs concerning the validity of particular moral systems are entirely subjective. Certain theists think that atheists' moral systems are fundamentally invalid because they don't center on God, but certain atheists think that theists' moral systems are fundamentally invalid because they do center on God. So not only do they disagree about what morality is, they also disagree about what should even be considered valid possibilities.

With this in mind, telling someone that their beliefs about morality are invalid because they don't match up with your subjective standards is pointless. They obviously believe their beliefs are valid or else they wouldn't believe them; to say their beliefs actually aren't valid would be the equivalent of name calling. In fact, to think that your beliefs are more legitimate because they best meet your own personal criteria for legitimacy is to misunderstand the critical role our subjective perspectives play in how we view reality.

Ultimately, all of our ideas about morality are subjective. Even people's beliefs about the existence of objective morality and moral absolutes are subjective. We simply do not and cannot know that our beliefs about the nature of morality are true or truer than anyone else's. If we could know these things, there would be much less debate over the matter.

And this is why the student's declaration about atheists being incapable of possessing any possible valid foundation for morality bothered me. I am not an atheist, but I don't hold my subjective beliefs about the existence of God or of the nature of morality in such high regard as to think they are more valid than anyone else's. I live my life as best I can in accordance with my beliefs because they're what make the most sense to me at the moment. I do not, however, think I have any sort of greater understanding about what is true in regards to these things. I don't think anyone does. We are all limited by our own perception and subjective understanding.

So, if you're going to discuss the nature of morality with someone else (which I totally recommend because it often challenges you to reevaluate your own positions), focus on explaining why you believe what you do and learning about why the other person believes what they do rather than discarding their opinions as invalid. I believe doing this will lead to a much more fruitful conversation and illustrate your understanding that we are all just thoughtful wanderers in a huge forest of mystery. All we have is our own personal, subjective, fallible thoughts and, although they are to be appreciated and respected, they are still just thoughts and need to be recognized as such.