Atheism, Agnosticism and Morality

Tweet

Ok, I know you dont' have to believe in life after death to want to have any kind of moral compass. I know that atheists and agnostics aren't anymore out for killing, raping and otherwise pillaging as anyone who does believe there's more something more than this mortal life. My question is goes more to the meaning of life in general and the decisions we make based on that meaning. If life begins at birth and ends at death, does anything in between matter at all? Does life have any meaning or purpose at all? It could only hold the meaning the individual wants to give it. Right? If there is nothing else, then there is nothing wrong with abortion since the fetus isn't living yet anyway. There really isn't much wrong with infanticide, since the baby wouldn't have put any meaning to life yet anyway. Suicide actually would be the ultimate answer to a life not worth living. It would really be inhuman to not be all for euthanasia. Ok, but those are pretty simple. Death wouldn't hold much meaning because it's just the end of life. It would be completely up to the person to decide if their life was so bad that to cease to exist would be preferable. But what about things we do that effect life already in progress. If there is no more meaning to life than the meaning a person wants it to have, then what's the difference between being a philanthropist or a criminal? Neither would be good or bad to the person being it. Of course, it might effect how the rest of us feel about the person, but that only matters as much as the person wants it to matter also. So, let's say that a person decides to twist the "he who dies with the most toys wins" attitude. Let's say he decides, "he who dies having raped the most women wins", or "he who dies having the most happy moments wins". What would be the difference in an existence whose meaning is so void of anything that it's literally according to the person living. If rape brings the rapist happiness, then how is he different than the philanthropist who is only in it to make himself happy? Both have accomplished the only meaning in this life, and that is whatever the individual decided it was. Some would say that we have a responsibility to make this world better than we found it. Really? Isn't that just another option in the menu of life meanings? Isn't it just as arbitrary as any other? If there is nothing before birth, or after death, then science and spirituality are equally wastes of time. Sure, coming up with a cure for some deadly virus would be a noble endeavor, but then again, whose to say the the life of the virus had any more importance than the life of its victim. Wouldn't killing the virus be just as arbitrary as killing the person. Wouldn't it be just as noble saving the life of the virus as saving the life of the human host? We come up with our moral compass based on what we learn, what we want, and what we can accept. We base our ideals of "good" and "bad" on what we think is important in life. But if life is as meaningless as an arbitrary purpose invented solely for the individual, then "important" is as meaningless a term as "good" and "bad". Again, I don't mean this to imply that atheists or agnostics are any more or less prone to be "good" or "bad" as anyone else. In fact, some would use their atheism or agnosticism as reasons to be "good", just as the rest of us use our belief system as reasons to be "good". "Bad" is just what happens when either we fail to live up to our ideal of "good" or someone else does.