Does morality exist without God?

[dcyates]

A non-theist basis for morality is simple: Human empathy. A recognition that other people are humans like myself, that they dislike pain and injury and misfortune, as I do. From this follows the rational principle that one should, as far as possible, seek to minimise these things. This principle results in rules which can be agreed upon by a majority and implemented. Any other source of morality is seriously flawed and will result inevitably in injustice for at least some.

And if I'm lacking empathy? What then?

 

[quatona]

And if I'm lacking empathy? What then?

Not sure what exactly you are asking...
The same could be asked accordingly about any other alleged source of morality, e.g.:
And if I´m lacking belief/obedience in God? What then?

 

[YuriVDS]

Morality
Morality is an awareness that stems from consciousness and emotional intelligence. In particular, the conscious awareness of well-being and suffering, and the emotional intelligence to empathize with other conscious creatures. Words and deeds that have an effect on the well-being and suffering of conscious creatures have moral implications for beings who are aware of those effects.
A cat toying with a mouse is not committing an immoral act, because even if the cat is conscious of the fact that it is causing unnecessary harm and suffering to the mouse, it does not have the emotional intelligence to empathize with the mouse. If the cat developed both faculties then it might cease to toy with mice.
A human eating a chicken nugget who is not aware that the chicken lived and died in agony and suffering in a battery farm may not be aware that they are committing an immoral act. However, consider a human who first visits the battery farm and watches the chicken live an unnatural caged life, then die a violent mechanical death in the slaughterhouse. That human might feel empathy for the suffering of the chicken, and might become conscious of the contribution to the chicken’s suffering that buying the nugget comprises and thus might recognize the moral issue with eating the chicken nugget. Without conscious awareness of well-being and suffering and emotional intelligence to empathize with other conscious creatures, there is no morality.

Morality and Faith
As a basis for a discussion on morality, holy texts provide some interesting studies. However, choosing these authority sources as moral guides is unethical. The Bible, for example, explains how and when to buy, sell, punish and sexually abuse slaves; advocates corporal punishment of children; and proposes moral bases upon which Christians would not perform an abortion at the request of a 9-year-old raped pregnant girl. The trouble with theism is that the faith-based assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of God persuades theists to assume that the morality of the Bible can be taken as objective, good and right morality. The writers of the Bible provided subjective moral answers but theists claim that those answers are actually objective moral rules. That is only true if God exists and the Bible is God's inerrant word. Since the existence of God can't be proved but may only be taken on faith, it is unethical to make life-changing moral declarations based on faith.

Sins
Sins don't really exist except in the minds of theists. Sins are things the writers of holy texts wanted to stop people from doing so wrote them in the holy texts with instructions. For example, it is a sin to punish your slave by damaging their eyes or teeth. Clearly the bible can't be trusted as a moral guide when its writer started from the assumption that owning slaves was moral.

Absolution
God has no right to forgive immoral acts. How would you feel if I shot your family in cold blood, then walked up to you and said,
"God has forgiven me so nanny nanny booboo"?

The only one who can forgive an immoral act is the victim of the act, after which the actor may or may not choose to forgive himself. The idea that immoral acts can be shed from the conscience by asking an imaginary friend for forgiveness only serves to encourage immorality. Absolution is nothing but mental abortion for immorality and is an ugly stain on religious doctrine.

 

[DCJazz]

Personally I'm going to keep this short and sweet to avoid a long essay, but I think morality comes from God, so no, it can't exist without Him. Humans destroy themselves all the time through wars and other stupid acts, so I can't say it originated from us. The fact there's an almost universal acceptance of what is right and wrong just seems too much to be a coincidence.

As for the forgiveness part of the post above me, I'm not going to be going into that other than to say I doubt you understand what forgiveness even is. But I do not wish to derail the thread any further than that.

 

[YuriVDS]

I am sorry to hear you're feeling sad. I hope you feel happy soon.

... I think morality comes from God...

Based on what thought process?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Humans destroy themselves all the time through wars and other stupid acts, so I can't say [morality] originated from us.

This doesn't follow. Humans do many loving and constructive things all the time, and other intelligent acts, so why wouldn't it develop with us?

The fact there's an almost universal acceptance of what is right and wrong just seems too much to be a coincidence.

There's almost universal acceptance on the priniciples of mathematics, but that doesn't mean that mathematics predates the human species.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Personally I'm going to keep this short and sweet to avoid a long essay, but I think morality comes from God, so no, it can't exist without Him. Humans destroy themselves all the time through wars and other stupid acts, so I can't say it originated from us. The fact there's an almost universal acceptance of what is right and wrong just seems too much to be a coincidence.

As for the forgiveness part of the post above me, I'm not going to be going into that other than to say I doubt you understand what forgiveness even is. But I do not wish to derail the thread any further than that.

So does the tendency to destroy ourselves all the time throigh wars and other stupid acts also come from God?

It seems to be an universal behaviour, as you describe it... that cannot be a coincidence.

 

[jpcedotal]

Absolute morality does not exist without God because morality is an inside thing and only God can see the true person behind the act.

 

[YuriVDS]

Absolute morality does not exist without God

Then absolute morality does not exist.

 

[Wayte]

And if I'm lacking empathy? What then?

Then you'll develop sociopathic tendencies and probably end up with a life sentence somewhere because of a string of rape/murders or something.

 

[dcyates]

Then you'll develop sociopathic tendencies and probably end up with a life sentence somewhere because of a string of rape/murders or something.

Only if I get caught. If there isn't a God, then there isn't any basis for morality other than the equivalent of, "Vanilla is better than chocolate because I like it better and so do most of my friends."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Only if I get caught. If there isn't a God, then there isn't any basis for morality other than the equivalent of, "Vanilla is better than chocolate because I like it better and so do most of my friends."

Not that you are aware of or find convincing, perhaps.

In reality, there are plenty of ethicists who are moral realists and who do not base their moral realism on theistic ideas. So, there are at least proposed bases for morality other than the subjectivism you mention.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

If there isn't a God, then there isn't any basis for morality other than the equivalent of, "Vanilla is better than chocolate because I like it better and so do most of my friends."

Whilst with your version we wouldn´t have any basis for morality other than the equivalent of "vanilla is better than chocolate because God says so. I don´t care what anyone likes, and neither does God".

 

[dcyates]

Not that you are aware of or find convincing, perhaps.

In reality, there are plenty of ethicists who are moral realists and who do not base their moral realism on theistic ideas. So, there are at least proposed bases for morality other than the subjectivism you mention.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course there are "plenty of ethicists who are moral realists who do not base their (system of ethics) on theistic ideas." They're generally called atheists -- and they're ultimately fooling themselves. They can claim all they like that even if Christianity had never existed society would have come up with or otherwise evolved a system of ethics either the same as, or even better than, the one we have -- which is one irrevocably influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic -- but anything they come up with and no matter how they argue for it, it's still purely conjecture and unavoidably influenced by that same pervasive and ubiquitous Judeo-Christian morality. They simply can't get around it.
And even aside from that, the testimony of history is that apart from Judeo-Christian morality, life is inevitably cheap, there is egregious inequality, an almost impenetrable divide between the sexes with females bearing precious little value other than as units of reproduction and/or prizes to be won and displayed, and the entrenchment of absolutist government. It's surely not by accident that all the best, healthiest, wealthiest, freest, socially and technologically advanced, and most generous places to live on the planet all share a significant Christian heritage (even the constitution of Japan was written by a Jesuit!) -- and the more that these places move away from that heritage, the less of all these things they become.

 

[dcyates]

Whilst with your version we wouldn´t have any basis for morality other than the equivalent of "vanilla is better than chocolate because God says so. I don´t care what anyone likes, and neither does God".

Well... Yeah! He IS God!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of course there are "plenty of ethicists who are moral realists who do not base their (system of ethics) on theistic ideas." They're generally called atheists

No, they simply don't base their ethical views on theistic ideas. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily atheists, though certainly some are. They could be Deists, just for instance.

They can claim all they like that even if Christianity had never existed society would have come up with or otherwise evolved a system of ethics either the same as, or even better than, the one we have -- which is one irrevocably influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic

And you may claim all you like that this could never have happened.

but anything they come up with and no matter how they argue for it, it's still purely conjecture and unavoidably influenced by that same pervasive and ubiquitous Judeo-Christian morality. They simply can't get around it.

You are conjecturing as well.

And even aside from that, the testimony of history is that apart from Judeo-Christian morality, life is inevitably cheap, there is egregious inequality, an almost impenetrable divide between the sexes with females bearing precious little value other than as units of reproduction and/or prizes to be won and displayed, and the entrenchment of absolutist government.

I'm sorry to inform you that this is true for the history of Judeo-Christian morality as well.

It's surely not by accident that all the best, healthiest, wealthiest, freest, socially and technologically advanced, and most generous places to live on the planet all share a significant Christian heritage (even the constitution of Japan was written by a Jesuit!) -- and the more that these places move away from that heritage, the less of all these things they become.

Ah, and they ALSO share a significant influence from Hellenistic and Roman philosophy. It's not like modern "Christian" societies are only influenced by Christianity, as if this exists in a vacuum.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

They can claim all they like that even if Christianity had never existed society would have come up with or otherwise evolved a system of ethics either the same as, or even better than, the one we have -- which is one irrevocably influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic -- but anything they come up with and no matter how they argue for it, it's still purely conjecture and unavoidably influenced by that same pervasive and ubiquitous Judeo-Christian morality. They simply can't get around it.

I wonder if he's aware that civilizations have existed for thousands of years with ethical codes WITHOUT Christian influence?

 

[purpledolphin8402]

The way I think about is this: If there is a god and this god says, "Raping children is wrong." (Just picking something we can all agree on as wrong). Then for whatever reason, this god says, "Raping children is right." What basis are we to go on? We can understand why raping children is wrong, but we wouldn't be able to understand how it could be right. Now, I'm not saying that any god would say that, but if that god is the creator of morality and there is no moral code without that god, that would mean that anything that god says is good and right is good and right. Also, if you say that a god absolutely wouldn't say that, then aren't you basing morality off of your own reasons and not god's?

EDIT: sorry if this has already been brought up, but I honestly haven't read all 54 pages.

 

[dcyates]

No, they simply don't base their ethical views on theistic ideas. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily atheists, though certainly some are. They could be Deists, just for instance.
I did say "generally."
And you may claim all you like that this could never have happened.
And I would be right. Because as I've already noted, the Judeo-Christian ethic is now at least 2,000 years old and has been spread around the globe; its presence and influence is ubiquitous. Widows in India, for example, are no longer subject to Hindu Sati and thus made to self-immolate on the funereal pyres of their deceased husbands, and this is because of Christianity. There is no longer slave-trading, or ritual human sacrifice in all the various parts of the world, because of the spread of the Christian gospel. It was Christianity that led to the abolition of slavery in the West (and by extension, virtually everywhere else), not once, but twice! Indeed, slavery had been all but completely abolished in the Christian West during the Middle Ages, and it was only with the Renaissance and the subsequent Enlightenment, with its emphasis on a return to Classical thinking, that slavery was ever re-introduced into the West -- and in a far more egregious form than had existed in the Classical world.
It was only the Christian West that saw the formulation of knightly chivalric codes (along with 'Just War' theory), and of courtly love practices that regarded women as persons to be wooed rather than as merely objects to be taken and impregnated. It's not by accident that was only in the Christian West that feminist movements flourished and that women enjoy anything close to equality with men.
After suffering various stillbirths previously in other parts of the world, it was only in the Christian West that science not only survived but then thrived: where astrology grew into astronomy, alchemy developed into chemistry, and mathematics became the language of science by which we discover, understand, and measure the cosmos.
Suffice to say, I could on and on.
You are conjecturing as well.
No, my friend, I'm not. For the exact reasons I explicate above.
I'm sorry to inform you that this is true for the history of Judeo-Christian morality as well.
Come now, Mark. Are infants -- most often the female babies -- regularly left exposed on trash heaps and thus left to the tender mercies of the vermin and other scavengers that typically feed in such places? Similarly, are the elderly turned out of their homes and left to wander till they also die of exposure? These were common practices in the Greco-Roman world and in each case it was Christians that deliberately searched the garbage dumps and the wildernesses outside their cities in order to find and take in these infants and elderly to care for them.
Are women forbidden to speak in public to any males they're not related to except through a male with whom they are somehow embedded, like a father, husband, or even a son -- and without whom they are left completely voiceless (such as was the case with childless widows)? Wherever they are not so forbidden, it is in large part owing to Christianity and its influence.
Is it still the case that it's considered perfectly acceptable that the poor are more severely punished than are the wealthy, even if they're both guilty of the exact same crime? It was only with the propagation of the uniquely biblical teaching that ALL humanity is created in the image of God, whether rich or poor, male or female, Jew or Gentile, that in those nations that share a significant Christian heritage -- or have been sufficiently Westernized -- where all are regarded as equal under the law.
Again, suffice to say, I could go on and on.
Ah, and they ALSO share a significant influence from Hellenistic and Roman philosophy. It's not like modern "Christian" societies are only influenced by Christianity, as if this exists in a vacuum.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I never made the claim that the Christian West has been solely and exclusively influenced by Christianity. Obviously, for example, the Roman Catholic church owes much of its hierarchical structure to that which preceded it in the Roman empire. And indeed, a good deal of Christian theology throughout Church history has owed as much to Hellenistic thought as it has to the contents of the Bible! These influences have been both a boon and bane to Christianity, but nevertheless, it cannot honestly be denied that the foundation of Western civilization has been the Christian Church.

 

[Eudaimonist]

it cannot honestly be denied that the foundation of Western civilization has been the Christian Church.

If so, that doesn't mean that the Bible is the cause of the freedom and prosperity of the West. It could be the Hellenistic influences on the Catholic Church that explain these things, despite the deficiencies of the Bible.


eudaimonia,

Mark