Does morality exist without God?

[Dave Ellis]

Moral Relativism is an extremely dangerous world view. When we tell people that morality is whatever they believe it to be then some people believe that their morality says it's ok to murder someone. Someone else will say their morality says rape is ok or domestic abuse is ok. Which by the way is already happening. If you take Moral Relativism to it's extreme it's hero becomes a psychopath.

Your argument is simply incorrect. The "moral relativism leads to chaos" argument breaks down because Morals are dictated by the society as a whole, and not the individual.

Even in a world where moral absolutes exist, you're still going to have the odd guy go out and rape and murder people. You can not dispute that point, because you believe we live in a world of moral absolutes, and there are rapists and murderers in society.

Moral relativism has a track record of becoming more and more moral over time. At one point rape was acceptable in some cases, cannibalism was practised, torture was fine, and slavery was not only ok, it was big business.

At some point, empathy kicks in, and the society as a whole starts to see the impact they are having on the oppressed people. Greater communication and denser populations usually contribute to this phenomenon. It makes it easier for the oppressed, and people who sympathize with the oppressed to start a movement and shift the public perception. The Black Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s was an example of this, and the current gay rights movement is another example.

As society is made up of a vast majority of relatively moral people, we will all come to the general agreement that it's wrong to murder, rape, steal, abuse and whatnot. Just because there may be a few mentally ill people within that society that have no moral objection to killing people, does not mean the society is going to descend into lawlessness and barbarism.

The vast majority of people feel empathy for others, and that is why our morals exist. That is not going to change, and that is why moral relativism is not dangerous.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I agree that a "free floating" view of morality is likely to stray from what is beneficial for people, even with the existence of evolved moral capacities such as empathy, but that doesn't mean that religion or God are necessary for morality. One can have a philosophical stance that is stable in its essential principles that provides a moral compass for one's life. While some atheists are moral relativists, there's certainly no requirement for this, just as some Christians don't believe in free will, but there's no requirement for that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Give one example of "free floating morality" from a societal perspective that has strayed from being beneficial to people, and hasn't been eventually objected to and/or corrected.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Morality is "constructed" in a number of ways, and different cultures, using different languages, given a different time and place, could construct similar but not identical moral systems that are roughly equivalent in terms of their value in producing personal well-being. So, there is no "One True Moral Code". Each moral code is like a tool for achieving certain results. Likewise, one person may prefer a fork, and another chopsticks, and yet both will still manage to eat dinner.

Likewise, if a person needs money, some get a job and some rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk yet both still manage to gain a payoff for their labor.

It certainly makes it easier to "morally" justify one's actions if they are an atheist since they believe there is no "One True Moral Code". The Cleveland bridge bomb plot was composed of anarchists. As this link states, "It’s no secret that a large percentage of anarchists are atheists."

Bomb plotters had ties to Occupy Cleveland | wkyc.com

The Facebook pages of at least two of the five men list their place of employment as "Occupy Cleveland."

Joshua Stafford calls hiimself an "atheist" on his Facebook page, while Brandon Baxter lists his political affiliation as Anarch-Communist on his.

Obviously not all atheists are anarchists, are willing to kill to get ahead or willing to "morally" justify innocent deaths just like not all Muslims are airplane-crashing suicide nuts or not all Christians support shooting abortion doctors. However, it does point out the problem of the lack of a "One True Moral Code". People can do as they please and justify it however they like. Of course, other people may object and, therefore, there will be conflict, but that's par for the course, right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Anyone not believing in God can accept morals from any part of the world bcause their is no standard to use. All these tribes over the world have heard the message of Christanity and about God, they heard early after Jesus went back to be with The Father. It was weakened by the same thing that weakens it now. People with the desire to do as they plase , passing that on to their children untill the knowledge was gone. Customs, how we raise our children, and tradition can not superseed the morals taught by the Bible as inspiredby God. All the reasons and arguments in this world can't change what is right and what is wrong. Today in America we see the evolution of moral values with the intent to justify our desires and lust. Man made woman second class to men not God, if any man believes murder is fine, that came from his weak mind not something God says is right. he things we see today strengthen a Christians faith because we see Prophecy comming true for us just as it did for past generations. Right is right and will always be so, Right won't change.

There's no standard to use even among those who believe in God. Hell, the Church itself is guilty of some of the largest moral atrocities in Human History, and (in my opinion) are still committing them today.

And I'd recommend before advocating we return to biblical morals, you read the bible and get a taste for what it regards as moral and immoral behaviour. Some of the "morals" in there by a modern standard are absolutely reprehensible.

In modern day America, we see an evolution of moral values to reflect a greater understanding of reality, and to discontinue oppressing those who have historically been oppressed. Besides, what right do you have to push "Christian Values" on a non-christian? That act in itself is immoral.

If you read the Bible, God actually did make women second class to men. Leviticus gives a monetary value to a human life, and women are 1/3 to 1/2 as valuable as men depending on age. 1 Timothy states that women are not allowed to have authority over men, and must be silent. The most telling is:

Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”.

The Bible clearly states women are inferior to men. Does this jive with your idea of morality? Right is right, and will always be so... So is this right? once upon a time it was, so it must be now as well. Or is that wrong?

 

[RoadWarrior]

There's no standard to use even among those who believe in God. Hell, the Church itself is guilty of some of the largest moral atrocities in Human History, and (in my opinion) are still committing them today.

There are general standards such as not killing each other or stealing from each other.

As for religious people who violate those morals, obviously they are ignoring them, not conducting themselves in line with "One True Morals" established by their religion.

The Bible clearly states women are inferior to men.

The Bible was also written by the hand of man. I'd say there was a bit of bias there. Also a product of the times. The veneer of civilization is a thin one on human beings.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Likewise, if a person needs money, some get a job and some rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk yet both still manage to gain a payoff for their labor.

It certainly makes it easier to "morally" justify one's actions if they are an atheist since they believe there is no "One True Moral Code". The Cleveland bridge bomb plot was composed of anarchists. As this link states, "It’s no secret that a large percentage of anarchists are atheists."

Bomb plotters had ties to Occupy Cleveland | wkyc.com


Obviously not all atheists are anarchists, are willing to kill to get ahead or willing to "morally" justify innocent deaths just like not all Muslims are airplane-crashing suicide nuts or not all Christians support shooting abortion doctors. However, it does point out the problem of the lack of a "One True Moral Code". People can do as they please and justify it however they like. Of course, other people may object and, therefore, there will be conflict, but that's par for the course, right?

Well, if it's on the internet, then it must be true!

Are you actually serious? You give a link to some anarcho-capitalist blog and then throw out a fallacious argument that most anarchists are atheists?

First off, your point is senseless... even if most anarchists are atheists, you have a couple problems:

1) How many anarchists are out there
2) What on earth does their religious beliefs have to do with the fact they're an anarchist? Is a Christian anarchist better than an Atheist anarchist?

On top of that, you completely miss the mark in the point you're trying to make, when you actually put the two labels in the correct order in your assertion.

You assert that most Anarchists are Atheists. However, you are talking about the Anarchist population, not the Atheist one.

Where you miss the boat is that you completely forget the point that the vast majority of Atheists are not Anarchists. Most Atheists in the U.S. are Democrats and Republicans. This fact completely skewers your point.

In my case, I'm Canadian. In recent memory I have voted for the Conservative Party, which is the closest equivalent to the Republicans in the states. Thankfully however our right wing party is not run by religious zealots. I've even volunteered time to the campaign in 2 of the last 3 elections. I don't know a single Atheist who advocates anything approaching an anarchist position. Some are left wing, some are right wing, none want to "bring down the establishment".



In the case of the Occupy Cleveland guys, one guy has listed himself as an Atheist. Oddly enough, it makes no comment on the religious views of the other 4. Given the fact that Atheists or Non-Believers make up roughly 15-20% of the general population... That would be reasonable to expect one in five people in this group hold Atheistic views.

On that note... what the hell is an Anarcho-Communist? Isn't that an oxymoron? How do you go about establishing a communist society without order or a governing body? That says to me these guys have no idea what they are even talking about. Who knows if the guy self-identifying as an Atheist understands what that label means either.

But that aside, even if all five of them were Atheists, they didn't bomb anything in the name of Atheism. Who the hell would go out and blow something up because they don't believe in something?

Their action was politically motivated, they planned to blow something up because they believe in Anarchy, and oppose the state. The vast majority of Atheists are totally with you in opposing and condemning their actions.

That being said, there is no such thing as "one true moral code". Different people have different ideas and different priorities. Morals are set by the society in which we live, and over time become more enlightened (albeit with some hiccups along the way). I don't see any reason why this trend will reverse.

 

[quatona]

It certainly makes it easier to "morally" justify one's actions if they are an atheist since they believe there is no "One True Moral Code".

It certainly makes it even easier to "morally" justify one´s actions if they claim them to be in accordance with an alleged "One True Moral Code" - at least that´s how a lot of the arguments here suggest.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Your argument is simply incorrect. The "moral relativism leads to chaos" argument breaks down because Morals are dictated by the society as a whole, and not the individual.

Even in a world where moral absolutes exist, you're still going to have the odd guy go out and rape and murder people. You can not dispute that point, because you believe we live in a world of moral absolutes, and there are rapists and murderers in society.

Moral relativism has a track record of becoming more and more moral over time. At one point rape was acceptable in some cases, cannibalism was practised, torture was fine, and slavery was not only ok, it was big business.

At some point, empathy kicks in, and the society as a whole starts to see the impact they are having on the oppressed people. Greater communication and denser populations usually contribute to this phenomenon. It makes it easier for the oppressed, and people who sympathize with the oppressed to start a movement and shift the public perception. The Black Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s was an example of this, and the current gay rights movement is another example.

As society is made up of a vast majority of relatively moral people, we will all come to the general agreement that it's wrong to murder, rape, steal, abuse and whatnot. Just because there may be a few mentally ill people within that society that have no moral objection to killing people, does not mean the society is going to descend into lawlessness and barbarism.

The vast majority of people feel empathy for others, and that is why our morals exist. That is not going to change, and that is why moral relativism is not dangerous.

It is you who is incorrect. Society says relativism is possibly the worst view of Relativism there is. If society says relativism was true one society could never say what another society is doing was wrong. If one society believes that rape, murder or even ethnic cleansing was right for them then no other society can tell them that they are wrong. In fact if society says relativism was true no one on earth would even think that what another society was doing was wrong. No one would have been able to tell Germany what they were doing in the 1930's was wrong. In fact no one would have said that slavery was wrong if a society said it was right for them. Society says relativism is in fact amoral.

There is no such thing as moral relativism becoming "more and more moral over time". In fact moral relativist discover objective moral truths over time and thus come to realize that rape, torture, slavery and cannibalism were always morally wrong.

If society says relativism was true then the black civil rights movement would have been the immoral stance and would have been stopped for going against society. Instead it showed that the society, in this case the United States, was morally wrong. So much for society say relativism.

Most societies are made up of mostly moral people. Moral people because they believe in objective moral truths not because they are moral relativist. Most people who descend into lawlessness and barbarism are not mentally ill, instead they believe that what they are doing is ok because they believe morality is whatever they think is right for them. And this is why moral relativism is extremely dangerous.

 

[TomZzyzx]

1. I find it somewhat odd when objectivism is argued for in a pragmatist fashion.
2. The structure of your argument boils down to "if moral relativism were true my personal set of moral wouldn´t be objective" - which is an understandable concern but not a solid argument.
3. Unfortunately you are misattributing the problem. As you say "it´s already happening" (and it has always been happening). Justifying atrocities doesn´t require moral relativism, and interestingly those people who commit and justify them are often moral objectivists.
4. If we want to convince others of the benefits of a certain morality there´s no way around coming up with good arguments for this particular set of morals.

5. There are psychopaths. That´s a disposition - not something you are taught to be and become.
6. Moral relativism is a meta-moral view - it doesn´t promote a particular morality. Therefore a protagonist of a certain morality can´t be its hero.
7. "If you take moral objectivism to its extrem its hero becomes a psychopath" make as much - or, rather, as little - sense as your statement.

Actually moral objectivism has been shown in it's extreme, and her name was Mother Terresa.

 

[quatona]

Actually moral objectivism has been shown in it's extreme, and her name was Mother Terresa.

Not to forget Hitler.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Not to forget Hitler.

Don't misinform the masses, Hitler did not believe that murder was wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

Don't misinform the masses, Hitler did not believe that murder was wrong.

And yet he believed what he was doing was good, and absolute.

 

[TomZzyzx]

And yet he believed what he was doing was good, and absolute.

I must have misunderstood you. You mean Hitler is a good example of taking moral relativism to it's extreme. Since "he believed" what he was doing was good. Exactly what a moral relativist does.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Give one example of "free floating morality" from a societal perspective that has strayed from being beneficial to people, and hasn't been eventually objected to and/or corrected.

If I were to mention such an example I would by implication object, and then I wouldn't be able to meet your challenge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Likewise, if a person needs money, some get a job and some rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk yet both still manage to gain a payoff for their labor.

Poor example. I'm not arguing that the ends justify the means. Not all ends are worthwhile, nor all means worthy.

What I'm saying is that worthwhile ends may be achieved with a different sets of culturally constructed concepts, but certainly within limits.

It certainly makes it easier to "morally" justify one's actions if they are an atheist since they believe there is no "One True Moral Code".

I'm not saying that "anything goes". I have a personal morality and virtue ethic. I simply don't pretend that my conceptualization is the One True Conceptualization, even if the reality of human well-being is precisely what it is despite my personal concepts.

You seem determined to misunderstand my point. Have fun with that. I'm not sure what it accomplishes though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not to forget Hitler.

Prove that Hitler was a moral objectivist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Prove that Hitler was a moral objectivist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What would you accept for a proof?
I wasn´t aware that there was any doubt about that.
From the top of my head I don´t recall any statement from him that suggested or implied that his morals were subjective (while I recall countless ones that come without any such qualifier). Just give me one, and my point will be disproven.

 

[quatona]

Don't misinform the masses, Hitler did not believe that murder was wrong.

Except that was not your initial criterium. Your criterium was "moral objectivist" (i.e. someone who believes morality to be objective).

 

[TomZzyzx]

Except that was not your initial criterium. Your criterium was "moral objectivist" (i.e. someone who believes morality to be objective).

Yes someone who believes morality is objective, not moral relativism which is someone who believes morality is whatever they believe it to be.

 

[quatona]

Yes someone who believes morality is objective, not moral relativism which is someone who believes morality is whatever they believe it to be.

So please restructure your argument so that it matches this criterium without moving the goalposts.