Can you be good without God?

[quatona]

This thread has obviously been derailed and sidetracked, so let's get back to the main question: can you be good without God?

Please clarify:
Are you asking
1. "Can you be good without there being a God?" or
2. "Can you be good without believing in a God?"
Even though the answer to those questions is the same, they require different approaches.

Anyway. Personally, I feel that a certain action (let´s say *visiting a stranger on his deathbed and playing a song for him*) is good. If you (hopefully) happen to agree with that assessment, I fail to see how the existence of a God (or your or my belief in a God, or lack thereof) would change anything about it.
Whilst if you disagree (saying that this is an evil action), I don´t know what the question whether a God exists (or who of us believes or doesn´t believe in a God, and which) helps with solving our disagreement.

Now maybe you want to tell me that without believing in a God and the moral views ascribed to It you would be left completely clueless how to value said action? And you are assuming that I am, too?

 

[quatona]

I would agree. Apart from God, goodness is just an opinion;

God´s opinion is alos just an opinion.

it has no cosmic meaning.

When I use the term "good", I don´t use it in a "cosmic meaning" (whatever that may be). I use it in a human meaning. So no problem there.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Nice argument, but I see a major flaw.

You have connected "good" with "intended purpose". But you have done nothing to justify that assertion. How do you propose to do that?

Ok, I know you are asking me how "intended purpose" is connected with "good and how I can justify that connection. I would have to say that your question would be more appropriately asked, How is "created purpose" connected to something being "objectively good/bad"? The answer is quite simple. In order to measure anything, it requires some kind of objective standard to base that measurement. How do we know which way is true, grid, or magnetic north? We can objectively determine which way is north by using objective standards such as the magnetic poles, north star, GPS, ect. Now, lets say we took that objective standard away. Lets say we are floating in the vacuum of space. Which way is north then?

Although it may not be perfect, "created purpose" is the only objective standard (that I can think of anyway) to measure a thing's goodness. You see, anyone can determine something to be good/bad for various reasons. Sometimes what is "good or bad" is not "black and white". Without an objective standard of measure, good/bad can be rather difficult to determine.

My "painbot" example is the best could come up with to explain this. I know it is not perfect....but eh.

Lets say a man invented a robot. This robot was created with intelligence, feeling, hopes, dreams, emotions, and anything else you would expect a living individual to possess. However, this inventor created this robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering onto it and called it a "painbot". (I know this sound twisted but bare with me.) Thus, the created purpose of a "painbot" is to suffer. Thus, the "painbot's" pain and suffering would be objectively good because it fulfills its created purpose. If a painbot was unable to experience pain and suffering, it would defective and rejected. Because for the painbot, joy and pleasure would go against a painbot's created purpose thus making joy and pleasure objectively bad.

Now you may say, "That is sick. Why would anyone be so twisted as to creating painbots?" That still does not change the fact that a good quality painbot is one who suffers greatly and a poor quality painbot is one who does not. All you have done is made the motive for the creation of painbots and the painbots themselves subjective but the actual purpose still remains objectively unchanged.

Lets say the inventor was a psychopath. Lets say he built hundreds of painbots so that himself and many other psychopaths could inflict pain and suffering on a machine rather than another human being. As a result, hundreds of human lives were saved because of it? Some may then say that painbots are good. Lets say that there was a supreme authority above all who created a law that prohibited the creation of painbots. That would make the motive and existence of painbots objectively bad. Yet it still does not change the objective fact that the level of pain and suffering a painbot experiences objectively determines how good or bad that painbot is.

You might be wondering, what does this have to do with a God. Well, I am not sure how it would work out in polytheism, but in monotheism (especially in regards to the God of Abraham) it is critical. Because if the God of Abraham is the one true God. That God is an eternal being who was never created and thus has no "created purpose". Being that this God has some level of intelligence, He is capable of bestowing a purpose onto Himself. However, because He as no equal to make that purpose subjective nor anyone above to make that purpose "objectively bad", whatever purpose He bestows upon Himself is "Objectively Good" by default! As a result, the purpose of all His creations will be "objectively good" by default. So in conclusion, assuming the God of Abraham is the one true God and not another, anything that a creation does that goes against God's created purpose is "objectively bad" and anything that agrees with God's created purpose is "objectively good".

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

sorry, double post

 

[Freodin]

Ok, I know you are asking me how "intended purpose" is connected with "good and how I can justify that connection. I would have to say that your question would be more appropriately asked, How is "created purpose" connected to something being "objectively good/bad"? The answer is quite simple. In order to measure anything, it requires some kind of objective standard to base that measurement. How do we know which way is true, grid, or magnetic north? We can objectively determine which way is north by using objective standards such as the magnetic poles, north star, GPS, ect. Now, lets say we took that objective standard away. Lets say we are floating in the vacuum of space. Which way is north then?

Although it may not be perfect, "created purpose" is the only objective standard (that I can think of anyway) to measure a thing's goodness. You see, anyone can determine something to be good/bad for various reasons. Sometimes what is "good or bad" is not "black and white". Without an objective standard of measure, good/bad can be rather difficult to determine.

My "painbot" example is the best could come up with to explain this. I know it is not perfect....but eh.

Lets say a man invented a robot. This robot was created with intelligence, feeling, hopes, dreams, emotions, and anything else you would expect a living individual to possess. However, this inventor created this robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering onto it and called it a "painbot". (I know this sound twisted but bare with me.) Thus, the created purpose of a "painbot" is to suffer. Thus, the "painbot's" pain and suffering would be objectively good because it fulfills its created purpose. If a painbot was unable to experience pain and suffering, it would defective and rejected. Because for the painbot, joy and pleasure would go against a painbot's created purpose thus making joy and pleasure objectively bad.

Now you may say, "That is sick. Why would anyone be so twisted as to creating painbots?" That still does not change the fact that a good quality painbot is one who suffers greatly and a poor quality painbot is one who does not. All you have done is made the motive for the creation of painbots and the painbots themselves subjective but the actual purpose still remains objectively unchanged.

Lets say the inventor was a psychopath. Lets say he built hundreds of painbots so that himself and many other psychopaths could inflict pain and suffering on a machine rather than another human being. As a result, hundreds of human lives were saved because of it? Some may then say that painbots are good. Lets say that there was a supreme authority above all who created a law that prohibited the creation of painbots. That would make the motive and existence of painbots objectively bad. Yet it still does not change the objective fact that the level of pain and suffering a painbot experiences objectively determines how good or bad that painbot is.

You might be wondering, what does this have to do with a God. Well, I am not sure how it would work out in polytheism, but in monotheism (especially in regards to the God of Abraham) it is critical. Because if the God of Abraham is the one true God. That God is an eternal being who was never created and thus has no "created purpose". Being that this God has some level of intelligence, He is capable of bestowing a purpose onto Himself. However, because He as no equal to make that purpose subjective nor anyone above to make that purpose "objectively bad", whatever purpose He bestows upon Himself is "Objectively Good" by default! As a result, the purpose of all His creations will be "objectively good" by default. So in conclusion, assuming the God of Abraham is the one true God and not another, anything that a creation does that goes against God's created purpose is "objectively bad" and anything that agrees with God's created purpose is "objectively good".

That again is a very interesting argument, but I fear it doesn't answer my question.

You defended your assertion of "created purpose" as an objective standard... and I'd say I agree with you. But what you still didn't do was to justify the connection between "created purpose" and "good and evil". You just took one objective standard and chose to call it "good".

But in the same way you could take the objective standard you first used and do the same: "North" is good. Everything not "North" is evil.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then why is it dragged through these forums on a regular basis?

Because the OP was asked with the assumption that God does exist thus making the requirement to prove the existence of God unnecessary.

If the op asked "why Superman was vulnerable to kryptonite" would I also be required to prove the existance of superman in order to answer the op?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Although it may not be perfect, "created purpose" is the only objective standard (that I can think of anyway) to measure a thing's goodness. You see, anyone can determine something to be good/bad for various reasons. Sometimes what is "good or bad" is not "black and white". Without an objective standard of measure, good/bad can be rather difficult to determine.

I find it illogical trying to tie "purpose" to "good" or "evil", because a purpose by itself has no consequences. Acts are the things we label "good" or "evil" because we're able to judge the results of the action, typically measuring potential suffering or joy that results from the action.

A "purpose" is nothing more than an intension for something. Intensions don't have to be realized, and therefore don't have to have an effect on reality.

And who cares if there's an objective standard for determining good or evil? Why isn't an intersubjective standard sufficient?

 

[Davian]

Because the OP was asked with the assumption that God does exist thus making the requirement to prove the existence of God unnecessary.

Then, aside from the derails, the moral argument would not be needed at all in this thread.

I gather that the fault with this thread is the unspoken assertion that "good"="belief in God", becoming more problematic when the associated theologies depict this god as morally bankrupt.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

But what you still didn't do was to justify the connection between "created purpose" and "good and evil". You just took one objective standard and chose to call it "good".

Because without "created purpose" as the objective standard, there is no good or evil because there is nothing else to measure good or evil.


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Freodin]

Because without "created purpose" as the objective standard, there is no good or evil because there is nothing else to measure good or evil.


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Yes, I accept that. But so what? That there isn't an objective standard is no reason to arbitrarily assign one to another concept.

And still... that only means that there is no way to objectively measure good and evil. Does there need to be one?

How would you objectively measure "tall"? Is there a need to do so?

(edited to add
Also, there may be other objective standards to measure good and evil. Ask Eudaimonist for his opinion... he is a moral objectivist who doesn't use "created purpose" as his objective standard.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because without "created purpose" as the objective standard, there is no good or evil because there is nothing else to measure good or evil.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

You can measure good and evil with any standard you wish. If enough people agree, then you have intersubjectivity.

 

[quatona]

Because without "created purpose" as the objective standard, there is no good or evil because there is nothing else to measure good or evil.

I fail to see why I couldn´t declare any standard "objective" just like you did.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I fail to see why I couldn´t declare any standard "objective" just like you did.

Well, I admit that my arguement is not flawless. There still a lot to think about. This is just the best I have come up with so far. If anyone else has a better standard I would be open to hearing it.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[quatona]

Well, I admit that my arguement is not flawless. There still a lot to think about. This is just the best I have come up with so far. If anyone else has a better standard I would be open to hearing it.

Well, determining a "better standard" would require you/us to have a standard (and/or criteria) for "good standards".
So I wonder what renders "created purpose" a priori a "good" standard, in your book. As far as I can tell, there can be good and bad purposes. I´m not sure why we would a priori assume the creator of the universe to have good purposes.
As a person who doesn´t really care about "cosmic standards" (whatever that may be), I can at least put my values on the table in order to compare actions to it, and also for you to understand what sort of reasoning my judgements are based on. As opposed to an a priori acceptance of values before we even know what they are (which the "God is good because he is the creator" argument suggests).

 

[Achilles6129]

Please clarify:
Are you asking
1. "Can you be good without there being a God?" or
2. "Can you be good without believing in a God?"
Even though the answer to those questions is the same, they require different approaches.

Anyway. Personally, I feel that a certain action (let´s say *visiting a stranger on his deathbed and playing a song for him*) is good. If you (hopefully) happen to agree with that assessment, I fail to see how the existence of a God (or your or my belief in a God, or lack thereof) would change anything about it.
Whilst if you disagree (saying that this is an evil action), I don´t know what the question whether a God exists (or who of us believes or doesn´t believe in a God, and which) helps with solving our disagreement.

Now maybe you want to tell me that without believing in a God and the moral views ascribed to It you would be left completely clueless how to value said action? And you are assuming that I am, too?

We're back to where we started. How can you be "good" without the definition of good? If God doesn't exist, then where does "goodness" come from? And, of course, if God doesn't exist, then ultimately it's just your opinion as to what's good and what isn't. And your opinion is cosmically irrelevant, as is everyone else's. So ultimately it makes absolutely no difference what you do or don't do.

God´s opinion is alos just an opinion.

Right, but it's the opinion of someone who is in a position to know much more than anyone else (you [and others] keep ignoring this fact). Just like a car mechanic's opinion about your car is "just an opinion" - but it's an opinion you would obviously value over say, the opinion of a cashier at Kroger.

When I use the term "good", I don´t use it in a "cosmic meaning" (whatever that may be). I use it in a human meaning. So no problem there.

Then it ultimately has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[Achilles6129]

You can measure good and evil with any standard you wish. If enough people agree, then you have intersubjectivity.

Ah. So then there really is no way to tell the difference between good and evil, correct?

 

[Freodin]

I'd like to repeat this question, as all you do is tell us negatives.

I would agree. Apart from God, goodness is just an opinion; it has no cosmic meaning.

So, with God, good is something other than an opinion. And it has "cosmic meaning".

Well, what is "good" then, if it isn't an opinion? What is the "cosmic meaning" of "good"?

 

[Achilles6129]

I'd like to repeat this question, as all you do is tell us negatives.

So, with God, good is something other than an opinion. And it has "cosmic meaning".

Well, what is "good" then, if it isn't an opinion? What is the "cosmic meaning" of "good"?

By "cosmic meaning" I mean that there's eternal relevance to good and evil. That's because God is eternal. If there is no God, then there's no eternal relevance to good and evil, so good and evil have no cosmic meaning. There's only a temporary meaning that you assign to it which ultimately (or maybe even shortly) fades away.

Without God, good/evil are just people's opinions. You could really look at it anyway you'd like, and no-one could prove you wrong. With God, good/evil aren't subject to people's opinions, but are rather based on God's opinion. And I've argued that God's opinion is actually the true definition of good and evil.

 

[Freodin]

By "cosmic meaning" I mean that there's eternal relevance to good and evil. That's because God is eternal. If there is no God, then there's no eternal relevance to good and evil, so good and evil have no cosmic meaning. There's only a temporary meaning that you assign to it which ultimately (or maybe even shortly) fades away.

So what is this "eternal relevance", this "cosmic meaning". You still haven't explained.

Without God, good/evil are just people's opinions. You could really look at it anyway you'd like, and no-one could prove you wrong. With God, good/evil aren't subject to people's opinions, but are rather based on God's opinion.

But if good and evil is not based on people's opinion, but on God's opinion... it is still based on opinion. You still cannot prove it right or wrong... and what good is an "objective standard" that doesn't offer that?

And I've argued that God's opinion is actually the true definition of good and evil.

You have asserted that... arguing for it is something else.
Basically, all these arguments get down to "might makes right"... and this simply doesn't make a good argument for morality.

 

[MennoSota]

I call it the "Booga booga booga, ergo I win" principle.

A great example of ignorance bringing bliss. If playing the part of the jester makes you happy, then continue on your merry way. [emoji85]