Can you be good without God?

[ToddNotTodd]

In that case, if good/evil are subjective, then there is really no such thing as good/evil, since everyone's definition would be different.

Noooo. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, it means they are subjective. Subjective things exist. Even one better, societies tend to have intersubjective morality, in that the majority of individuals have similar morals. As in, most people believe stealing and murder to be wrong, ceteris paribis. It has never been the case in any society that everyone's morality is completely different from everyone else's. Intersubjectivity makes morality within a society possible. And within any given intersubjective system, objective statements can be made, which makes situational ethics possible.

So the whole Christian gotcha of objective morality is a non starter, and frankly pretty silly.

If good/evil are objective,

They aren't.

which they must be in order to exist in any meaningful sense,

They don't.

then we're back to where we started, meaning that you have to prove what good/evil are.

You would if you were right. But you aren't...

 

[Achilles6129]

So, you just said that according to your worldview, good and evil don't exist in any meaningful sense?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, you just said that according to your worldview, good and evil don't exist in any meaningful sense?

You apparently need to read a bit more closely...

 

[PsychoSarah]

In that case, if good/evil are subjective, then there is really no such thing as good/evil, since everyone's definition would be different. If good/evil are objective, which they must be in order to exist in any meaningful sense, then we're back to where we started, meaning that you have to prove what good/evil are.

Good and evil will always be subjective, abstract terms. Even if some objective morality existed, it would inevitably be subjective in practice, as everyone would interpret it differently. Additionally, no form of morality can come from a mind and retain any degree of objectivity, so even if a deity came up with a moral system, said moral system would be inherently subject to the opinions and views of that being.

 

[Hikarifuru]

No, it's God's sovereign right.

You are subject under God, no matter how much you complain.

That's an opinion, that's subjective I am not subject to your god at all even if he did suddenly exist.

 

[Hikarifuru]

1) You are correct: everything God says/does is a reflection of his nature and moral character.

2) Scripture never condones rape. However, you are correct in that there are prophecies where God says he will bring nations against people who will rape women, etc. That doesn't mean that God approves of this behavior, but I think you are correct to a certain extent when you say that he uses it as punishment. However, just because God uses something as punishment doesn't necessarily mean he approves it: remember, rape gets the death penalty in the Torah.

I also want to remind everyone that according to the rules of this forum we cannot discuss apologetics (which means we can't discuss interpretations of Scripture passages) on this forum. I find this rule to be unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do. I've had threads shut down for it before.

Actually your god does condone rape, if you read the verses already posted several times here you will see that god himself said he would make rape happen, that he would cause rape and he called it his wrath, his punishment and he called the day he chose to cause it, the day of the lord. You need to actually think about this before you talk.

 

[Hikarifuru]

The fact that I think people should live longer is irrelevant to the discussion.

There are good actions, and there are harmful actions. If you gave medicine to an otherwise healthy person who was suffering from a minor illness, and that medicine allowed them to heal up and recover, then you have by definition benefitted them. Their health has improved, that is objective.

Giving that person medicine and helping them out creates far more positive consequences than negative. Therefore, it is a moral act.

But your assertion that living longer is positive or right or morally good is your opinion. When discussing whether morality is objective or subjective the question is not whether medicine works, but rather whether living longer is right or wrong or good or bad and that is not determined by whether or not it works.

 

[quatona]

You may have slightly misunderstood my point.

Moral judgments are necessarily subjective, as all judgments are.

However, those judgments are based on objective facts. That's where the objective basis to morality rests. There is no such thing as a subjective fact.

So no disagreement there.

 

[quatona]

No, it's God's sovereign right.

If its God´s sovereign right to establish a relative morality is a totally different question.

You are subject under God, no matter how much you complain.

I didn´t complain, I just pointed out something.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But your assertion that living longer is positive or right or morally good is your opinion. When discussing whether morality is objective or subjective the question is not whether medicine works, but rather whether living longer is right or wrong or good or bad and that is not determined by whether or not it works.

No, you're misunderstanding my point again. The length of life is irrelevant to my point.

If you have someone who has a minor illness, and you give them medicine to get better, versus allowing them to get better on their own, their lifespan likely is not significantly affected one way or another. You're focusing on lifespan, whereas my argument has nothing to do with that.

My argument deals with general health. And, it is an objective fact that giving someone medicine to get over an illness will positively benefit their health.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So no disagreement there.

Perfect!

So yeah, when the religious say we have no objective basis, that's where they are wrong.

 

[Hikarifuru]

No, you're misunderstanding my point again. The length of life is irrelevant to my point.

If you have someone who has a minor illness, and you give them medicine to get better, versus allowing them to get better on their own, their lifespan likely is not significantly affected one way or another. You're focusing on lifespan, whereas my argument has nothing to do with that.

My argument deals with general health. And, it is an objective fact that giving someone medicine to get over an illness will positively benefit their health.

You missed my point, I was using lifespan as an example. Yes it is an objective fact that giving someone medicine will improve their health, but that such is a good thing is a different conclusion and it's only an opinion. Basing your subjective moral system on some objective characteristic doesn't make the moral system objective itself. You are making subjective conclusions based on other objective facts. It is still only an opinion that we should be well, even if we know exactly what to do to get well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You missed my point, I was using lifespan as an example. Yes it is an objective fact that giving someone medicine will improve their health, but that such is a good thing is a different conclusion and it's only an opinion. Basing your subjective moral system on some objective characteristic doesn't make the moral system objective itself. You are making subjective conclusions based on other objective facts. It is still only an opinion that we should be well, even if we know exactly what to do to get well.

I repeat what I said to quatona in post #398

"Moral judgments are necessarily subjective, as all judgments are.

However, those judgments are based on objective facts. That's where the objective basis to morality rests. There is no such thing as a subjective fact."

You can only judge something to be good or bad based on the consequences of your actions. Are they more beneficial to someone or more negative to someone? Most moral judgments you come across in day to day life are pretty easy to make, and we make them without thinking. However, there are some grey areas that require a lot of debate, and sometimes it comes down to how certain people weigh the consequences of an act.

 

[Freodin]

I can't really see this whole topic as a valid philosophical discussion. It is more of a trolling topic. As the famous saying goes: it is trying to convince someone that he is ill, so that you can sell him your medicine.

First, you establish the two distinct categories.
"Being good" is, obviously, good. Preferable. Whatever else comes from it, this is what the goal is.
"Not being good" is set up with negative effects and consequences. "Not being good" is not something that can be safely ignored... people care about all the concepts of "justice" and "punishment" that are connected with it.

Second, you disconnect "being good" from human conditions. You cannot be good "without God". "Being good" is not even related to anything humans do / feel / evaluate any more... there is just one condition: "without God".

Third, prepare reactions to the obvious observation that the people "with God" are not any better at "being good (in a secular way)" at all.
You can assert that "being good" is equivalent to "being with God"... disconnecting morals from the evaluation of any actions at all. Or you can disconnect the human condition from "being good" completely: you (humans) cannot "be good" at all... only God is good.

Fourth, now you have established that people "without God" are not good... therefore deserving "punishment", or that no people at all are good... therefore deserving punishment.

And finally, you have reached the "profit" stage: assert that only by following your commands can one manage to escape this punishment. This still doesn't have anything to do with "being good"... but at least you can hope not to be eternally grilled, do anything you can justify for yourself, and chide all others for being even worse than you.

 

[SteveB28]

You insulting my God is like me insulting your mother. In either case, we should have enough respect to avoid these types of exchanges.

His mother exists.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Dave,

Your claimed that there are object right and wrongs when Quatona said there were none. You then said that certain's acts were certainly good. I disagree.

Now do agree that subjective morality is based on some other objective things.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Dave,

Your claimed that there are object right and wrongs when Quatona said there were none. You then said that certain's acts were certainly good. I disagree.

Now do agree that subjective morality is based on some other objective things.

No, that's not what I said.

I said some things are objectively beneficial or harmful to someone. We can use those objective facts to make judgments on morality. There is a difference between objectively beneficial, and judging something to be good. Something that is objectively beneficial is (obviously) objective. Curing someone's cancer is objectively beneficial to their health, for example.

Judging an act to be good or bad is subjective, and as I said, all judgments are subjective.

Basically, you're conflating the evidence we use to make judgments with the judgment itself. I didn't say objectively good, I said objectively beneficial. My subjective judgment in that case would be that thing is good.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I have to disagree with that one. There are objective facts that we base moral judgments off of.

Granted, the existence of a god is irrelevant to those facts.

This was in response to Quatona only saying that morality is not objective, even with a god.

The fact that I think people should live longer is irrelevant to the discussion.

There are good actions, and there are harmful actions. If you gave medicine to an otherwise healthy person who was suffering from a minor illness, and that medicine allowed them to heal up and recover, then you have by definition benefitted them. Their health has improved, that is objective.

Giving that person medicine and helping them out creates far more positive consequences than negative. Therefore, it is a moral act.

At this point I understand that you're really trying to say that morality subjective but based on some objective evidence. I agree with that. I was just responding to what you said earlier. You said that actions are morally good, that there are moral acts and you disagreed with Quatona when he said all morality is relative.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Because the positive benefits, or the negative consequences are objective. Someone's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to what is objectively beneficial or harmful.

For example, if I believed with all my heart that drinking poison was a benefit to myself, that's not going to stop the objective reality that the poison will kill me, which is clearly harmful to myself.

Helping people overcome psychological problems, is clearly a benefit to the people he is helping. Likewise, killing millions is objectively harmful to the people who are being killed.

That's consequential ethics. What are the consequences of a given act? Based on that, we can judge Stalin to be evil, whereas Larnievc is good (or is at least carrying out a good act in this situation, as we don't know much else about him).

Yes, but you are acting as if humans are special and deserve concern. But if atheistic evolution is true then humans are just another animal and nothing special. The consequences of what you do to others and yourself are objective but the reason you are doing them is subjective. It is just based on sentimental feelings for humans. There is no real objective reason for you not to kill yourself or other people especially if they hurt your survival which is the whole point of evolution. In fact that is why Stalin killed the aristocracy and the intelligentsia because he thought they were hurting his country and also his surivival. So as you can see there is nothing objectively wrong with what Stalin did if there is no God especially the Christian God.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Yes, but you are acting as if humans are special and deserve concern. But if atheistic evolution is true then humans are just another animal and nothing special. The consequences of what you do to others and yourself are objective but the reason you are doing them is subjective. It is just based on sentimental feelings for humans. There is no real objective reason for you not to kill yourself or other people especially if they hurt your survival which is the whole point of evolution. In fact that is why Stalin killed the aristocracy and the intelligentsia because he thought they were hurting his country and also his surivival. So as you can see there is nothing objectively wrong with what Stalin did if there is no God especially the Christian God.

You don't seem to understand that the Christian god does the exact same things as Stalin and worse and a lot more too. Stalin is not an example of why we need the Christian god, because he acted just like the Christian god by killing burning raping and burning people he did not approve of simply because he wanted to. You also seem to not understand that regardless of how screwed up Stalin was that does not mean morality comes from god, it's a completely different topic.

You seem committed to believing in a Christian moral system because you think it would protect you from people like Stalin but it actually does the same things, and you seem committed to declaring that all peoples morals come from your god too... when in fact every last one of us are morally superior to the Christian god because none of us will ever do the horrifying things he does.

It's a completely separate topic but the Christian god is the worst thing of all, it's not the source of our goodness or morals.