Christian, Morality, and Materialism

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
Alright then, please list some mundane activities which are moral, but have no social or legal ramifications. Then tell me that no atheist would do these activities.

That's the point. My morals could be irrelevant to yours. Why don't you tell me some rules you hold and I will tell if as a materialist/atheist you should have them.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and legal or social codes of conducts. Once a rule of conduct becomes legal, then it ceases to be moral rule and becomes a legal rule.

Do you make a distinction between religious and secular legalism?

When I say morality, I mean [] the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. []

That one would place rules upon oneself presupposes that one may experience inner desires which must be supressed. Is this not equally the case for believer and atheist alike?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

The irony of asserting that atheists have no real reason to be moral is that you are, in effect, saying that atheists are morally superior to theists.

Theists, by your claim, are moral out of fear of eternal damnation, so they have a reason. Atheists have only themselves standing in the way of immorality. Since it would be ridiculous to claim that atheists are never moral, knowing that they often are, then I submit that atheists are actually more moral than theists.

Whether or not they should have moral standards is irrelevant. Perhaps you are right. Why shouldn't I kill someone I don't like if I can get away with it? Maybe because I respect life, myself, and humanity in general. Maybe because it would just feel wrong. I don't know.

It just scares me to think that the only thing preventing the collapse of society is an imaginary being telling people not to be bad.

 

[Christian]

Dynamic wrote:
Do you make a distinction between religious and secular legalism?

From the legal academia there are four classifications of rules of conduct. Moral, social, religious and legal. To simplyfy, the social can absorb the religious into one category.

That one would place rules upon oneself presupposes that one may experience inner desires which must be supressed. Is this not equally the case for believer and atheist alike?

Correct. And good point. Why would you want to suppress inner desires that have no external negative consequences?

In the case of theists, there would be something to compell them.

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The irony of asserting that atheists have no real reason to be moral is that you are, in effect, saying that atheists are morally superior to theists.

No, that would not be the conclusion.

Theists, by your claim, are moral out of fear of eternal damnation, so they have a reason. Atheists have only themselves standing in the way of immorality. Since it would be ridiculous to claim that atheists are never moral, knowing that they often are, then I submit that atheists are actually more moral than theists.

Ok, I follow what you are saying. But an atheist being moral is a self-judgement. If you are the only judge and jury, you will always find yourself to be moral, it makes the standard useless.

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.

Whether or not they should have moral standards is irrelevant. Perhaps you are right. Why shouldn't I kill someone I don't like if I can get away with it? Maybe because I respect life, myself, and humanity in general. Maybe because it would just feel wrong. I don't know.

Luckily, is not up to you or me to decide. If you commit murder, you are under the threat of punishment. If you don't get away with it, then you will have to pay a steep price. I rely on the deterrent effect of laws to protect me from people committing murder.

Given the choice of living in either a land where I'm at the mercy of inhabitant's good will and of a land where there is the rule of law, I choose the latter.

It just scares me to think that the only thing preventing the collapse of society is an imaginary being telling people not to be bad.

No, what prevents the collapse of any society is the rule of law (social and legal)

 

[Keneke]

Keneke wrote:
Alright then, please list some mundane activities which are moral, but have no social or legal ramifications. Then tell me that no atheist would do these activities.

That's the point. My morals could be irrelevant to yours. Why don't you tell me some rules you hold and I will tell if as a materialist/atheist you should have them.

Don't throw it back at me, you made the difference between morality and social condes of conduct! I'm saying that social codes of conduct IS morality, in part.

This looks awfully lot like an attempt at Christian (the religion, not the poster) superiority again.

 

[Keneke]

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.

We already do. Societal standards.

 

[Christian]

Keneke wrote:
Don't throw it back at me, you made the difference between morality and social condes of conduct! I'm saying that social codes of conduct IS morality, in part.

This looks awfully lot like an attempt at Christian (the religion, not the poster) superiority again.

You are not getting my point. How am I suppose to know what you find moral or immoral? Morality to an materialist/atheist is a subjective standard. That means it depends on the SUBJECT.

It is irrelevant if I consider moral codes to be objective or not. To a materialist/atheist it must be subjective. There is no other choice.

So, the only one who can tell what is moral or not is you.

We already do. Societal standards.

So, then you agree with me, that morality should be irrelevant? Or are you saying you take your queues from social norms? And if so, who makes sure you enforce them?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Ok, I follow what you are saying. But an atheist being moral is a self-judgement. If you are the only judge and jury, you will always find yourself to be moral, it makes the standard useless.

My position is that you should drop morality in favor of an outside standard (outside rules of conduct) that will show you if you are following it or not.

Unfortunately, dropping morality in favor of an outside standard has its drawbacks. At some point you will come to a decision that is not covered in the Rules of Conduct and will be forced to make a decision on your own. In making this crucial decision you can only rely upon yourself.

By "Rules of Conduct" I also assume you are talking about some higher moral authority. You cannot be talking about law, because laws and morals are two separate entities and should not be mixed in philosophical discussion. Therefore, since there is no outer moral authority above man and his laws, and since these laws also provide insufficient coverage of morality, an individual is solely responsible for his or her morality. The highest morality, then, is what is perceived by the individual and those who are affected by the repercussions of that individual's moral standard.

The laws of gods are merely the laws of men. So theists are actually adhering the moral standards set by other men. This gives them leave to abandon the true higher moral authority, which is the self. Atheists adhere to the highest moral standard, when being moral.

My point is that a truly moral person follows an inner moral standard. This is not saying that merely believing oneself moral makes it so, regardless of actions (like Christianity), but that the individual is required to hold himself to that standard despite external influence, or lack thereof.

 

[slimshady2357]

If you limit 'morality' to not include any kind of 'rules for men to live successfully among other men' (which I think is what Christian is saying), then I agree with him to an extent.

I still don't think morality is irrelevant to an atheist/materialist, because people's morality (people like Christian) DO matter to me! For instance, if they are going to use their morality to override the laws and social mores of the place I live in, I want to know about it!

[side track]In university we had a fairly prominent ethical philosphy prof, he basically taught us that it was most useful to make a distinction between Ethics and Morals. In his class (at least) Ethics referred to a normative system of beliefs which was 'absolute' in some way. Whereas Morals dealt with the rules and laws men need to make to live together successfully.

Using this distinction, I think what Christian is saying is that Ethics should be irrelevant to an atheist/materialist.

And he does not deny that law, social mores and the such are of interest to the atheist/materialist.

Would you agree with that Christian? That you have restricted the meaning of morality to mean only what my old prof meant by 'Ethics'?[/side track]

Should you agree with that Christian, I agree that Ethics are not absolute to an atheist/materialist.

However, as stated above, this harldy makes them irrelevant! I could be highly interested in Ethics for a number of reasons.

1)Historically
2)Philosphically
3)Psychologically
4)To better understand the people around me

I'm sure more could be listed.

However, if your basic point was that it would be strange for an atheist/materialist to adopt any particular Ethic (remember, when I'm using that word it implies some kind of 'absolute' belief system), then I agree.

It certainly doesn't mean that they won't be moral though.

Adam

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Christian said:
You are not getting my point. How am I suppose to know what you find moral or immoral? Morality to an materialist/atheist is a subjective standard. That means it depends on the SUBJECT.

It's a subjective standard for Christians, too. It's just that a big bunch of Christians have agreed on the same standards (yeah, right, like they really have). There is no objective enforcement of these standards. A big bunch of atheists or Iowans or redheads could agree on some standards, too.

What are you saying other than "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all agree on some morals?"

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Why would you want to suppress inner desires that have no external negative consequences?

How about negative internal consequences?

There are laws that come in the form of rules, which may be essentially arbitrary. I don't see how it matters what social institution was their source, they are just rules. Like any rules, some of these may be bent; others may be broken. And then there are laws which are of the nature of immutable laws of nature. I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence. There is no process of appeal, no negotiation -- this immutable law could not be changed by God himself (if there were such a being). Christianity (while acknowledging the existence of immutable laws) is based on the notion that it is indeed possible to obtain a special exemption. I regard that as not only hopelessly unrealistic, but as an essentially immoral attempt to avoid responsibility.

 

[Christian]

Wile E. Coyote

It's hard to debate when we are coming from different places. I understand what you are saying and the point you are making. Materialist/Atheists are morally superior because out of self-conviction (free of coersion) act morally. They don't need the threat the punishment or the promise of reward to act morally.

I do understand what you are saying.

But please note that in trying to make your point, you are missing the discussion.

slimshady2357 wrote:
If you limit 'morality' to not include any kind of 'rules for men to live successfully among other men' (which I think is what Christian is saying), then I agree with him to an extent.

Yes, correct morality are rules made by one for one. The classic example of a moral rule is thoughts (impure or pure). Materialists/atheists should make no such distinction.

I still don't think morality is irrelevant to an atheist/materialist, because people's morality (people like Christian) DO matter to me! For instance, if they are going to use their morality to override the laws and social mores of the place I live in, I want to know about it!

Good point. Once a rule spills over to the social and legal arena, then it has teeth, impact, it becomes relevant. If it stays as a moral norm, it has no impact or relevancy.

[side track]In university we had a fairly prominent ethical philosphy prof, he basically taught us that it was most useful to make a distinction between Ethics and Morals. In his class (at least) Ethics referred to a normative system of beliefs which was 'absolute' in some way. Whereas Morals dealt with the rules and laws men need to make to live together successfully.

Good, excellent. What the professor did in making such distinction is that he meant (I think) that Ethics is an OBJECTIVE normative system. The main difference is that morals are subjective.

This is why you can ascribe to an ethical code of conduct and be immoral. For example, lawyers have a duty to protect the client-lawyer secrecy priveledge. If a lawyer works in a pharmaceudical company that harmed patients, he is bound by the code of attorney ethics (please note that ethics belong in the category of social norms) not to disclose information, even though doing so would save lives. It is immoral, yet ethical. (and some could argue it is not immoral, the reason is that the standard is subjective)

Would you agree with that Christian? That you have restricted the meaning of morality to mean only what my old prof meant by 'Ethics'?[/side track]

Did I answer your question?

 

[slimshady2357]

Yes, correct morality are rules made by one for one. The classic example of a moral rule is thoughts (impure or pure). Materialists/atheists should make no such distinction.

Good point. Once a rule spills over to the social and legal arena, then it has teeth, impact, it becomes relevant. If it stays as a moral norm, it has no impact or relevancy.

I think we might be talking past one another slightly, it seems to me you are saying morality, but meaning one's own personal morality (Ethics). In that case I can agree with 'irrelevant'. But I have been any Ethics in general.

When using the term morality, are you exclusively meaning the term 'one's own personal morality'?

Then I would agree with you, with the understanding that when you say morality, you mean (in my terms) 'one's own personal Ethics'.

Then I believe we are in agreement

Good, excellent. What the professor did in making such distinction is that he meant (I think) that Ethics is an OBJECTIVE normative system. The main difference is that morals are subjective.

Not quite the distinction I think he had in mind. However you are correct that he meant that Ethics are objective. Definitely.

Did I answer your question?

Pretty much

I think you skipped the rest of the post because you believed it was not relevant, this being due to the fact that you are using 'morality' to mean 'one's own personal Ethics'?

Is that correct?

If so, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Adam

 

[Fun2BFree]

Christian (and Christians) have bought a lie and continue to buy more lies-

So what is the External arbiter of what is Moral?
Where do we learn about this External Arbiter?
If you think it is in the Revealed Word of God how do you and most Christians decide which parts of the Revealed Word are the REALLY IMPORTANT PARTS and which are not so important or can be ignored like most Christians do (vows of poverty, etc) Last time I checked the REVEALED WORDS all are in the same typeface/font and don't come underlined?
Or is it that people using reason and logic determine what makes sense to achieve a certain end (negative or positive based on both external and internal factors) and then determine what is "moral" based on the consequences.

Christian- your argument fails because you throw around a lot of words that YOU think you have defined but you have not--you think believing in some Christian system is somehow External when in fact it is totally and completely INTERNAL--ther e is no external proof for the belief in God- none--the materialist/atheist morality and ethics are based entirely on EVIDENCE--what is the REAL measurable consequence of a behavior--If I do X how does it affect the REAL WORLD (which includes how I feel about myself and my relationship with others) When Christian does X apparently the consequence of importance is what happens in some made up "other world" for which there is no evidence...

Thanks--I will take the person whose morality is based in THIS WORLD and you can live with those lining up for their afterworld virgins and other rewards for "belief-based morality."

 

[scribble]

Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)

Well, this just isn't true for this right-thinking Atheist. I feel no need to enforce my flavor of moral behaviour on others. Most people adhere to a different set of moral values - EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH. There are many fragments of Christianity, and moral choices are often the centerpeice of their differences.

Why should it be a requirement that my morals are inflicted on others? Is there some reason that my set of morals are better suited to everyone's life than their own? No. My moral decisions were made strictly in the context of what works in *my* life. Not everyone's.

2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.

I assert that if there are no consequences of an action, then it is morally null. That is, it makes no difference if you do it or not.

The fact is, there are real consequences in this life (ie, not "God's gunna get you") for every single example of moral behavior that has been mentioned in this thread.

I challenge you to argue that an action without any consequences for anyone is either moral or immoral. Of course, I find it hard to imagine such an action in the first place.

When I say morality, I mean (it should be understood to be) the set of rules (of do’s and don’ts) that are placed upon oneself by oneself and are only enforceable by oneself. (If you are a materialist/atheist there is no other choice of definition).

Doesn't "only enforceable by oneself" contradict your earlier definition?

This Atheist's morality - and I can't speak for anyone else - is based mainly around the idea that this life is all we have. This has been a much stronger sense of Right and Wrong for me than the Christian ethos was when I was a fundamentalist. Every second of every person's life is precious, and a very good system of behaviour can be extrapolated from this belief.

Of course - there is no "absolute" morality. Mine just works real well for me and endears me to most people I meet.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Been here before! Scribble has covered it pretty well. You said :

Morals are codes of conduct. Now, from the materialist/atheist’s perspective:

1. They are useless if they can't be enforced on others. (What is the use of adhering to a code of conduct that can’t be enforceable?)

But your definition says "self enforced". A moral code works for me because I enforce it. I can also seek to convince others to accept my code. So my moral code is enforceable on others via the process of my convincing them that they should "self-enforce" it also. Therefore a community morality arises from exchange of ideas, and personal responsibility.

2. There are no positive of negative external consequences of following moral codes of conduct.

This doesn't read correctly to me - I can't understand what you mean. You are saying that an atheist believes there are no external consequences for following a moral code? Or that an atheist believes there should not be consequences? Or thatn there cannot be external conseqeunces? In this world, or in an ideal world?

I make an academic distinction between moral codes of conduct and lega or social codes of conducts.

I asked you once before - do you think that it's acceptable that the legal and moral codes be different? Do you believe that (some) immoral actions should *always* be legal? Do you believe that (some) legal actions should *always* be immoral? The legal code is nothing more than our *current* best attempt to write down a suitable moral code - if the two differ, it's because we're still working it out. In an ideal world, the two would be 'in sync', wouldn't they?

 

[Christian]

You will forgive if I don't address every single point. I'll do my best.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:
It's a subjective standard for Christians, too. It's just that a big bunch of Christians have agreed on the same standards (yeah, right, like they really have). There is no objective enforcement of these standards. A big bunch of atheists or Iowans or redheads could agree on some standards, too.

What are you saying other than "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all agree on some morals?"

It would be logical for a materialist/atheist to conclude that any morality (religious based or not) is subjective. As a materialist/atheist it is in your best interest that people agree on specific standards of conduct. If not, you find yourself having to put up with Christians (or any other religion) imposing their code on you.


Dynamic wrote:
How about negative internal consequences?

Can you give me examples of negative internal consequences?

I have learned to operate under the assumption that one of these immutable laws is that whatever you do becomes a part of you; every choice carries a consequence.

Be careful here, you are arguing that there are universal rules of moral conduct. You are close to saying there might be supernatural forces at work.

slimshady2357 wrote:
I think we might be talking past one another slightly, it seems to me you are saying morality, but meaning one's own personal morality (Ethics).

Ok, you want to make a distinction between general morality and personal morality? I don’t see how you can do that distinction but please tell me how. And you want to call personal morality Ethics. Ok, I don’t define ethics that way but if it will get the point across, ok.

When using the term morality, are you exclusively meaning the term 'one's own personal morality'?

Well, think about it, is there any other type of morality? Morality by definition is personal.

Then I would agree with you, with the understanding that when you say morality, you mean (in my terms) 'one's own personal Ethics'.

Ok, I can appreciate that.

think you skipped the rest of the post because you believed it was not relevant, this being due to the fact that you are using 'morality' to mean 'one's own personal Ethics'?

Is that correct?

Yes, absolutely.

If so, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Ok.

I’ve seen your other posts and you seem to write much more clear than me. So, please stick around and maybe you can help me when I’m not able to explain myself.

Fun2Bfree wrote:
Christian- your argument fails because you throw around a lot of words that YOU think you have defined but you have not--you think believing in some Christian system is somehow External when in fact it is totally and completely INTERNAL

I’m just going to comment on this part. Yes, you our correct, from the materialist/atheist point of view, my morality is completely internal (from that point of view, I’m only diluting myself into thinking is it external, I get that, but please note that that is not the point of the discussion)


Scribble wrote:
Well, this just isn't true for this right-thinking Atheist. I feel no need to enforce my flavor of moral behaviour on others.

My point is that a standard that shifts (or that there is no way of knowing if it is being followed or not) is useless. If only you know you are following your flavor of moral behavior and you are not accountable to anyone or anything for it, you will always be 100% moral in your eyes. What is the use of such a code of conduct?

Why should it be a requirement that my morals are inflicted on others? Is there some reason that my set of morals are better suited to everyone's life than their own? No. My moral decisions were made strictly in the context of what works in *my* life. Not everyone's.

So don’t call it morals, call them preferences, tastes, inclinations. Morality is a code of conduct that must be followed. See, it MUST BE FOLLOWED. If it doesn’t have to be followed, then it is not a code.

The distinction I’m making is that (please, this is the important part) for a materialist/atheist this code is self-imposed and there is no accountability to anyone else for it. And, with your comments, you are supporting that point.

The fact is, there are real consequences in this life (ie, not "God's gunna get you") for every single example of moral behavior that has been mentioned in this thread.

All of the example (except mine on thoughts) have not been examples of moral rules.

I challenge you to argue that an action without any consequences for anyone is either moral or immoral. Of course, I find it hard to imagine such an action in the first place.

To me, imagining in my mind that I’m raping a woman is immoral. I see no reason whatsoever for a materialist/atheist to find that immoral at all. If materialism/atheism is correct, nothing that one thinks brings negative outside consequences. If that view is correct, you are free to think and imagine whatever you like. There are no repercussions, no consequences, no effects.

Doesn't "only enforceable by oneself" contradict your earlier definition?

No. Why does it?

You are the only one who can control you morality. You impose the rules and you enforce them on yourself.

Of course - there is no "absolute" morality. Mine just works real well for me and endears me to most people I meet.

The problem is that you are the judge and jury. When you say it works for you, you are the only one judging that and it will always be a true statement. What is the purpose of such a code if it is useless as a standard.

If you said “I’m fit and healthy”, there is a standard that you can use to check if you are correct or only diluting yourself into thinking you are.

When you say you are moral, how do you know? If you don’t want to impose your morality on others (I suspect because you believe it is personal) and you don’t want no one to impose it on you, how do you know you are moral? If only your opinion counts, then you will always be moral. What’s the purpose measuring a state that is always so, that never changes?

Loki wrote:
Been here before! Scribble has covered it pretty well.

So, also see my responses to scribble.

So my moral code is enforceable on others via the process of my convincing them that they should "self-enforce" it also.

That’s not what enforceable means. Enforceable means that I can make you comply even if you don’t want to or I can punish you if you don’t comply.

You are saying that an atheist believes there are no external consequences for following a moral code?

Yes, absolutely. Isn’t this precisely why materialists/atheist say they are morality superior to religious people. Their argument is that even though there are no negative external consequences to their actions (or that they don’t need an imaginary entity threatening them with a punishment or offering a reward) they choose to act morality out of their own volition free of any coercion.

I asked you once before - do you think that it's acceptable that the legal and moral codes be different?

Ok, let’s try this. Suppose you were in class and the teacher asked you: Mr. Loki can you tell me the difference between a moral rule and a legal rule? What would you answer?

I hope you can see that we make a distinction between a moral rule and a legal rule. If not, they would be called the same. Why don’t you take a stab at this one? What is the difference between a social norm and a legal norm?

The legal code is nothing more than our *current* best attempt to write down a suitable moral code - if the two differ, it's because we're still working it out. In an ideal world, the two would be 'in sync', wouldn't they?

Ok, I’m trying to get you on the same page here. Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make (it is your last sentence). But, you are missing the point I’m discussing.

Please note from your comment that you make a distinction between moral codes and legal codes. This is obvious because you call them separately, you call them both CODES. So, what makes one a moral rule and one a legal rule? What is the difference? If you answer that Loki, we will be in the same place.

 

[slimshady2357]

Ok, you want to make a distinction between general morality and personal morality? I don’t see how you can do that distinction but please tell me how. And you want to call personal morality Ethics. Ok, I don’t define ethics that way but if it will get the point across, ok.

Ya, I think we have a terminology problem, but we are getting past it

I think whenever I type 'Ethics' you can read it as 'morality' (and vice versa) and we'll be fine.

I make a distiction between personal Ethics and just Ethics because there are groups of people who take on common Ethics. So that you could talk about a certain group's Ethics. For instance if I am talking about Personal Rights theory, that is an Ethical theory, not necesarily of one person.

But I do agree that each person will take on their own personal Ethical system (perhaps none!).

Well, think about it, is there any other type of morality? Morality by definition is personal.

Well as I said, I don't think so, but I don't think it really matters either

Ok.

I’ve seen your other posts and you seem to write much more clear than me. So, please stick around and maybe you can help me when I’m not able to explain myself.

I'll see what I can do, but without a trace of false modesty, I don't think I'm very good at communicating my ideas. I get frustrated by my inadequacy in this department a heck of a lot.

But, like I said, I'll see what I can do!

To anyone who is reading this:

Read the side-track I wrote above about the difference between Ethics and Morals that my old Phil Prof used to make, then imagine that Christian is talking about some 'objective (or absolute) Ethical theory' that you might take on.

I think many of your disagreements will disappear.

Do you hold to what you believe is an 'absolute, objective Ethical theory?'

Or do you rather base your actions in general on 'how to live well amongst other humans'?

Adam

 

[Dancing David]

Negative internal consequence: the shame I would feel if I fantasied about having sex with my daughter.

Morals are morals: Cgristian why is a belief in god needed for morals. Is that not a semantic distinction?

For example there may be a burglar who , never steals from 'poor' people, gives ten percent to charity and would never commit rape. It is against that person's morals to steal from the poor and commit rape.

I think that what you are doing is defining morals to be absolute morals, is that what I thought you wrote?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make (it is your last sentence). But, you are missing the point I’m discussing.

Obviously, and repeatedly! Yes, I still don't really understand your thinking here, despite numerous attempts at clarification...

Please note from your comment that you make a distinction between moral codes and legal codes. This is obvious because you call them separately, you call them both CODES. So, what makes one a moral rule and one a legal rule? What is the difference? If you answer that Loki, we will be in the same place.

We'll be in the same place? Perhaps ... I see the differnece between "moral" and "legal" as a practical difference. In theory, they should be the same 'code', but the realities of living in a complex world require legislation (shop trading hours, for example?) that have a practical rather than moral basis. Immoral acts should be illegal. Illegal acts are not always immoral.

(your answers to scribble)

If only you know you are following your flavor of moral behavior and you are not accountable to anyone or anything for it, you will always be 100% moral in your eyes.

NO, I will be "100% moral" when my behaviour matches my expectations - which it often doesn't.

What is the use of such a code of conduct?

It gives me a framework to measure my daily behaviour against - I'm winning, or losing, and I can tell which.

I think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals". You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself. I reject this - my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.

There is a simple axiom underlying my position - that "being moral is better than not being moral". Then apply the process for defining morals, and finally end up with "behaviour". In this system, your argument seems to hold no weight.

Are you really asking "why does any atheist think it is better to be moral than immoral?"