How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

ananda said:
As a Buddhist, I define "good" as that which decreases suffering for one's self & for others.

Thats the what.

He's asking about the how. Whats the basis you rely on for calling that "good"?

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

grasping the after wind said:
I don't see why you can't make the same kind of general statement as you have in those other circumstances as you say that morality is so easy to discern that if one looks to a moral authority they are actually immoral somehow.

If you need examples of helping oneself and harming another How about these. I also threw in some helping others and harming oneself to get a feeling for how you would edecide which is immoral and which is morally upright.

Taxing my neighbor to provide things for me.
Shoplifting
Killing one's spouse to collect the insurance money.
Hit and run.
Giving money to a charity organization .
Giving someone your only food because they are hungry too.
Making a good salary working for a non profit that one knows is is fraudulent

I would like to know what the process is that you use to decide which is good and which is bad in these situations.

There's 2 side by side processes.
1. Intuition
2. Reasoning about the kind of world each practice would lead to.

ananda · Aug 11, 2020

durangodawood said:
Thats the what.

He's asking about the how. Whats the basis you rely on for calling that "good"?

By my own judgment, like everyone else.

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

ananda said:
By my own judgment, like everyone else.

Is that like an intuition? You get a feeling or sense about it? Or something else?

jayem · Aug 11, 2020

In practice, God (i.e., the Abrahamic god, or any god) becomes virtually inseparable from religion. Which history confirms has a decidedly mixed record in encouraging men to love and respect each other. Especially when those others are of a different religion. That’s the problem with linking gods with morality. As Pascal said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely as when they do it from religious conviction.

ananda · Aug 11, 2020

durangodawood said:
Is that like an intuition? You get a feeling or sense about it? Or something else?

All of the above, probably. Consciousness + mind + mental factors, as applied to perception of suffering and/or contentment as they associate with volitional actions.

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

jayem said:
In practice, God (i.e., the Abrahamic god, or any god) becomes virtually inseparable from religion. Which history confirms has a decidedly mixed record in encouraging men to love and respect each other. Especially when those others are of a different religion. That’s the problem with linking gods with morality. As Pascal said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely as when they do it from religious conviction.

Religion started out tribal. God was the god of the Hebrews at one point.

We can read what that tribal god did to enemies of the tribe. It was absolutely us-vs-them. Now its our God vs false god. Or our God vs no god. Or true church vs false church.

R.J. Aldridge · Aug 11, 2020

VirOptimus said:
It means just what it says.

Science does not deal with the supernatural or metaphysics.

Wheter that exist is belief, ie religion.

I understood your initial point, I simply wanted to explore the philosophical implications. If we are going to use science as a tool, I believe it is important to understand what it can and cannot do in our pursuit of truth. I am not trying to make a religious point, I am making a point that people can discuss without falling back on rigid dogmas.

jayem · Aug 11, 2020

durangodawood said:
Religion started out tribal. God was the god of the Hebrews at one point.

We can read what that tribal god did to enemies of the tribe. It was absolutely us-vs-them. Now its our God vs false god. Or our God vs no god. Or true church vs false church.

Absolutely correct. That’s how religion evolved. It exists because it reinforced tribal cohesion. But does that promote better moral behavior in a modern, religiously diverse society? Maybe, but not always. To me, the truest test of any religion’s moral rectitude is its attitude towards non-believers.

VirOptimus · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
I understood your initial point, I simply wanted to explore the philosophical implications. If we are going to use science as a tool, I believe it is important to understand what it can and cannot do in our pursuit of truth. I am not trying to make a religious point, I am making a point that people can discuss without falling back on rigid dogmas.

If you dont even understand the basics then you are in way over your head.

R.J. Aldridge · Aug 11, 2020

VirOptimus said:
If you dont even understand the basics then you are in way over your head.

Tell me what I have misunderstood? All I have done is explore an idea, while all you have done is make statements. Science only deals with physical reality. OK, I understand that. Now, if we want to make a distinction between all of reality and the physical, where the physical is part of reality but not necessarily all of reality, is this not a question that we can ask? Just because science cannot answer that question does not mean that we don't try.

VirOptimus · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
Tell me what I have misunderstood? All I have done is explore an idea, while all you have done is make statements. Science only deals with physical reality. OK, I understand that. Now, if we want to make a distinction between all of reality and the physical, where the physical is part of reality but not necessarily all of reality, is this not a question that we can ask? Just because science cannot answer that question does not mean that we don't try.

That is of course nothing new, take a philosophy 101 or theology 101 and try again.

R.J. Aldridge · Aug 11, 2020

VirOptimus said:
That is of course nothing new, take a philosophy 101 or theology 101 and try again.

I'll take a philosophy course to learn not to ask questions and a theology course to learn not to venture into metaphysics. Thanks for caring in your nihilistic way.

VirOptimus · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
I'll take a philosophy course to learn not to ask questions and a theology course to learn not to venture into metaphysics. Thanks for caring in your nihilistic way.

Education is a good thing if one wants to understand complicated concepts.

R.J. Aldridge · Aug 11, 2020

VirOptimus said:
Education is a good thing if one wants to understand complicated concepts.

sometimes education is an excuse for people to embody Job 35:16, "When he began speaking, he communicated only worthlessness; he added words upon words without knowing anything.”

VirOptimus · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
sometimes education is an excuse for people to embody Job 35:16, "When he began speaking, he communicated only worthlessness; he added words upon words without knowing anything.”

Quoting the bible to an atheist does not impress.

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
...Why is X good? because it furthers the subjective goal of human survival and/or flourishing....

Not really subjective in that its pretty much instinctive to want these things. They are built into us at a level deeper than mere opinion. You can call that God's design. Or you can call that evolution.

R.J. Aldridge · Aug 11, 2020

durangodawood said:
Not really subjective in that its pretty much instinctive to want these things. They are built into us at a level deeper than mere opinion. You can call that God's design. Or you can call that evolution.

I agree it is deeply instinctual to most of us, but there are those who instinctively want to destroy what others consider good. If evolution is the source of our instincts to the point that they are not entirely subjective, those minorities, who stem from the same evolutionary source will contradict the collective. When the collective has the authority to choose what is the real good goal for humanity, then morality is subject to the majority.

durangodawood · Aug 11, 2020

R.J. Aldridge said:
I agree it is deeply instinctual to most of us, but there are those who instinctively want to destroy what others consider good. If evolution is the source of our instincts to the point that they are not entirely subjective, those minorities, who stem from the same evolutionary source will contradict the collective. When the collective has the authority to choose what is the real good goal for humanity, then morality is subject to the majority.

Yes, of course. Psychopaths will be opposed by the majority. I see no problem with this. Do you?

Kaon · Aug 11, 2020

Daniel Marsh said:
How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

Romans 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

People who do not believe in a deity as the Prime for "what is good" likely have a belief in "objective morality" - which should be an oxymoron.

The reality is if we take away a deity from the equation (much less the Most High), there is absolutely no "absolute" that can measure the standard of our morality and define it as objective. We as humans with ego define what is good; civilization is an agreement/covenant that is based on the honoring of laws that substantiate the morality we see as [objectively] good. But, nothing a human does is objectively good unless the human uses a set of rules that is objectively beyond humanity.

How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

Dis Member

Dis Member

Early Buddhist

Dis Member

Naturalist

Early Buddhist

Dis Member

Active Member

Naturalist

A nihilist who cares.

Active Member

A nihilist who cares.

Active Member

A nihilist who cares.

Active Member

A nihilist who cares.

Dis Member

Active Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads