Can there be morality without God?

[Autumnleaf]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. Historical cases of this are:

Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council

and

Chronology of Mass Killings during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right.

They are also left to discover what is wrong or right, and they may have philosophical discussions with others about this.

Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power.

That would be just as true for any theocratic government as anything else.

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small

*cough* Crusades *cough*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right.

Which is what has always been done. People make up a God as an authority to justify their decisions.

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

You were right earlier. Deaths related to religion occur for the same reasons--power and control over others. But religious murderers can trump up preposterous charges (like the above) and claim they're doing God's will.

 

[essentialsaltes]

ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe

Which Crusade was that? The Crusades were Europeans becoming foreign invaders to 'retake' the Holy Land.

or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

Yes, but the Jews and ex-Jews didn't actually sacrifice Christian children, did they?

 

[Ken-1122]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this.

Because God apparently doesn't speak for himself, people are left to interpret what God says is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what God says is right and what he says is wrong. Oddly, people seldom agree on this.

Ken

 

[Golden Yak]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right.

With or without, people will decide in their own mind what is right or wrong, and either agree with another's view or disagree.

Therefore, yes, there can be morality without God.

 

[Strathos]

Do you mean without belief in God? Because without God there couldn't be anything, including morality. No existence = no morality.

 

[quatona]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right.

Yes, and this wouldn´t be any different with a God.

 

[Paradoxum]

How is God deciding right and wrong any different from a human doing it? If you think morality is arbitrary opinion, then it makes no difference.

If you think morality has more substance, then it isn't unreasonable to think humans can discover it, like God.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. Historical cases of this are:

Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council

and

Chronology of Mass Killings during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

What about European colonization efforts done under the guise of "spreading christianity"...that effectively wiped out entire indigenous populations? You seem be rather selective in your memory of history...

 

[terryjohn]

Even the worst of us would call themself moral, the only problem is how two moral individuals can be opposed to the others standards of morality? Is it possible to say another is immoral? Even satan could be said to have morals but that will not save him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Even the worst of us would call themself moral, the only problem is how two moral individuals can be opposed to the others standards of morality? Is it possible to say another is immoral? Even satan could be said to have morals but that will not save him.

I'm pretty sure anyone can say another is immoral.

I see it all the time on this very forum.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I love how these 'moral arguments' are always framed - that we're supposed to take for granted that a moral philosophy derived from 'divine authority' is somehow ontologically and epistemologically robust. It isn't. It's utterly vacuous.

There is no reason to suspect any god exists.

Even if there were a god, there is no reason to suspect he necessarily has moral opinions at all.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions, there is no reason to suspect those moral opinions necessarily pertain to humanity.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity, there is no means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are.

So,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions don't exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

And,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

They are effectively identical.

But,

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity and a means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are, there is no reason to necessarily conform to them. Some or all of them could just as easily be morally reprehensible, and we'd have to evaluate each one on its own merits.

So, again,

Even in a world where possible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

These are just of a few of the many, many problems with the 'moral argument' that theists must overcome before they can even pretend to possess a coherent moral philosophy, let alone any kind of moral high ground above me or any other nonbeliever.

I'm glad these aren't my problems.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is no reason to suspect any god exists.

Even if there were a god, there is no reason to suspect he necessarily has moral opinions at all.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions, there is no reason to suspect those moral opinions necessarily pertain to humanity.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity, there is no means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are.

So,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions don't exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

And,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

They are effectively identical.

But,

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity and a means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are, there is no reason to necessarily conform to them. Some or all of them could just as easily be morally reprehensible, and we'd have to evaluate each one on its own merits.

So, again,

Even in a world where possible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

These are just of a few of the many, many problems with the 'moral argument' that theists must overcome before they can even pretend to possess a coherent moral philosophy, let alone any kind of moral high ground above me or any other nonbeliever.

I'm glad these aren't my problems.

Great post!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you mean without belief in God? Because without God there couldn't be anything, including morality. No existence = no morality.

We already live in a godless, uncreated universe, so that doesn't pose a problem.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Isnt there a a problem though?

Consider: "God is not real, therefore all theistic based morals are dysfunctional."

It may well be like a non sequitir fallacy that people may well make.

Starting from scratch is always going to involve setbacks as well as potential advances.

 

[Audacious]

Given that many philosophers of ethics who were not nihilists were atheists, the answer is obviously yes.

I can't see how this is even a question if one has ever met an atheist.

 

[Jesse2014]

No, it is possible.

 

[stevevw]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. Historical cases of this are:

Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council

and

Chronology of Mass Killings during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

Morality under subjective views can be manipulated and corrupted. Even when it is an agreed moral right to do something by a society it can be wrong and have consequences. Humans are fallible and cannot know what is ultimately best so they cant be trusted with deciding what is right and wrong. Like you say what can be considered right can be influenced by power, position, money and other personal motives. There is no ultimate consequence for doing something wrong or whatever a person wants to call negatively affecting others or society or this planet. We all know of things we need to do that are right but we still dont do it. Like feeding the poor. We know there are people that will die of starvation but we still allow this to happen. We are basically selfish and as evolution says its the survival of the fittest.

So without an independent judge of what is right and wrong we can justify all sorts of things. Whoever has the best and most persuasive argument about what they believe is right or can buy their way into a position can be right for that moment. Only having a set of morals independent of ourselves can we find some consistent and strong basis for building a society. It can guide us and make us accountable for our actions.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Morality under subjective views can be manipulated and corrupted. Even when it is an agreed moral right to do something by a society it can be wrong and have consequences. Humans are fallible and cannot know what is ultimately best so they cant be trusted with deciding what is right and wrong. Like you say what can be considered right can be influenced by power, position, money and other personal motives. There is no ultimate consequence for doing something wrong or whatever a person wants to call negatively affecting others or society or this planet. We all know of things we need to do that are right but we still dont do it. Like feeding the poor. We know there are people that will die of starvation but we still allow this to happen. We are basically selfish and as evolution says its the survival of the fittest.

So without an independent judge of what is right and wrong we can justify all sorts of things. Whoever has the best and most persuasive argument about what they believe is right or can buy their way into a position can be right for that moment. Only having a set of morals independent of ourselves can we find some consistent and strong basis for building a society.

As I pointed out in my previous post, you have an immense amount of work ahead of you. A moral philosophy of the 'divine' is rife with problems so numerous and so basic, I dismiss it out of hand for the vacuous, incoherent mess that it is.

Also, 'subjective' and 'goddidit' is a false dichotomy.

Furthermore,

It can guide us and make us accountable for our actions.

That is nonsense.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that 'divine' moral philosophy is an ontological and epistemological deadzone, utterly incapable of guiding us in any meaningful fashion, the Christian dogma of vicarious redemption destroys the entire concept of accountability. Under your system, the lifelong serial street mugger, rapist, arsonist and torture-murdering pederast can have a deathbed conversion and go to heaven, with no accountability to his victims whatsoever. Meanwhile, the lifelong atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

To even pretend such a system is designed to engender any moral behavior at all is almost too sad to be funny, but not quite.