Does morality exist without God?

[grahamsnumber]

Morality is an adaptive trait developed through evolution. Imagine two groups of people: one with a moral sense of cooperation and compassion, and one without. Which group survives to have more offspring? The group with morality does much better; through cooperation and fair treatment, the whole group does much better than those who fight amongst themselves.

 

[Eudaimonist]

unless lots of people happen to hate the dictator or his wars

They might. But what I'm saying is that an effective social opposition may require a conviction that the government is doing something wrong, not merely doing something that some faction doesn't happen to like. That gives them, and others, the sense that their opposition is justified, not merely a matter of taste.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

No need to justify yourself. It´s just that I remember I had already put a lot of time, thought and effort into it, and we had just come to crucial points. I was highly interested in your arguments....and I honestly regretted that the discussion came to an end.

I'll be away on a short vacation, but maybe I'll attempt a thread on metaethics, if you are still interested.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

That seems to be the main problem: the moral objectivist (of a certain colour) don't have anything to offer but "morals are objective, that means they are true! My morals are true and therefore objective, because of what I believe."

For my part, I would never say that anything is true because of what I believe. Belief does not generate truth. Only reality can justify truth claims.

But I will agree that theistic forms of moral objectivism tend ultimately to rest either on faith or on the unconvincing idea that everyone already holds the objective morals in question.

I have come to the conclusion that there are no "right" and "wrong" at all. Might does not make right. Might does not make wrong either. Might makes results... and you can either like them or not.

That is sad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

They might. But what I'm saying is that an effective social opposition may require a conviction that the government is doing something wrong,

I still don´t seem to understand why being aware of convictions being subjective doesn´t allow for convictions being strong and decisive.

not merely doing something that some faction doesn't happen to like.

Do you think it´s possible for a moral subjectivist to bring more to the table than a shoulder shrugging "umm, well, you know, don´t take it the wrong way, but I just don´t happen to like what you are doing there"? ;-)
(Just like, as you point out correctly, a moral objectivist can have more in store than a mere "I´m right, you´re wrong, because I have discovered the truth.")

 

[quatona]

I'll be away on a short vacation, but maybe I'll attempt a thread on metaethics, if you are still interested.

Oh, most definitely!

Enjoy yourself!

 

[blarg the 2nd]

They might. But what I'm saying is that an effective social opposition may require a conviction that the government is doing something wrong, not merely doing something that some faction doesn't happen to like. That gives them, and others, the sense that their opposition is justified, not merely a matter of taste.


eudaimonia,

Mark

you can have a lot of conviction about whats wrong when your own feelings and thoughts dictate what that is

 

[Verv]

Morality is an adaptive trait developed through evolution. Imagine two groups of people: one with a moral sense of cooperation and compassion, and one without. Which group survives to have more offspring? The group with morality does much better; through cooperation and fair treatment, the whole group does much better than those who fight amongst themselves.

That is not exactly right...

For instance, is it really morality when two people are in an 'alliance' of sorts, simply seeking to gain things together?

There is an 'understanding.' We do not attack each other because we vaguely like one another, and also because we have other enemies that we have to fight together.

This isn't exactly what morality is. This is more of a description of cooperation than anything else.

Morality is the limiting of ourselves because of the belief in a higher value than something such as rote consumerism or abuse of others.

 

[Bogumil]

i believe it does..

 

[SonOfTheWest]

That is not exactly right...

For instance, is it really morality when two people are in an 'alliance' of sorts, simply seeking to gain things together?

There is an 'understanding.' We do not attack each other because we vaguely like one another, and also because we have other enemies that we have to fight together.

This isn't exactly what morality is. This is more of a description of cooperation than anything else.

Morality is the limiting of ourselves because of the belief in a higher value than something such as rote consumerism or abuse of others.

The thing is, these are no sociologically unconnected things. It would be one thing to claim that such activities and habits of humanity as social animals in and of themselves are the producers of our morality. Another to address it as a facet of what produces our moral natures. I think it's one of those subjects so multifaceted it's a little difficult to tackle all on one observation.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

its not fair


please explin your viewpoint

i believe it does..

 

[Tenka]

If morality evolved with humans then the only morality you can have is a subjective, relativistic morality. Everyone's morality is what ever they say it is. One person thinks murder is wrong and another thinks murder is right. One thinks rape is wrong and one thinks rape is right. Moral relativism is a dangerous idea to hold.

I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or if you honestly can't figure it out but it's incredibly simple.

I don't want to be robbed/raped/murdered or have this happen to anyone I care about, you want the same for yourself and the ones you care about. Together, we agree not to tolerate these things because it's in our own best interest.

Even children inventing game in the backyard naturally adopt this system when they devise the rules.

 

[Texan40]

I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or if you honestly can't figure it out but it's incredibly simple.

I don't want to be robbed/raped/murdered or have this happen to anyone I care about, you want the same for yourself and the ones you care about. Together, we agree not to tolerate these things because it's in our own best interest.

Even children inventing game in the backyard naturally adopt this system when they devise the rules.

Then how do children recognize that a situation is "wrong" even if they have not encountered it before? Even if they have not been told the "rules" of the situation? Conscience is not trial and error.

 

[Belk]

Then how do children recognize that a situation is "wrong" even if they have not encountered it before? Even if they have not been told the "rules" of the situation? Conscience is not trial and error.

Cultural learning. The same way they pick up language.

Cultural learning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why children from different cultures will have a different approach to ethical situations. Conscience is not inherent.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or if you honestly can't figure it out but it's incredibly simple.

I don't want to be robbed/raped/murdered or have this happen to anyone I care about, you want the same for yourself and the ones you care about. Together, we agree not to tolerate these things because it's in our own best interest.

Even children inventing game in the backyard naturally adopt this system when they devise the rules.

Then where do you get your morality from?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Cultural learning. The same way they pick up language.

Cultural learning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why children from different cultures will have a different approach to ethical situations. Conscience is not inherent.

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok. Each culture decides what is right and what is wrong. This is Moral Relativism and it is a dangerous moral system. Morals are not subjective to the culture or individual, they are objective and true for everyone. If rape and killing is wrong for one culture or individual, then it is wrong for all cultures and individuals.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Then how do children recognize that a situation is "wrong" even if they have not encountered it before? Even if they have not been told the "rules" of the situation? Conscience is not trial and error.

because they know things they don't like

and what people consider to be right and wrong can change over time

and since the point of this debate is to show some ways of thinking are flawed and others make sense ideally changing the way some people think about the nature of right and wrong conscience we all apparently do think trial and error can occur.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Then where do you get your morality from?

ones selfand information one gains form ones surrounding that gets added to ones self maybe

 

[blarg the 2nd]

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok. Each culture decides what is right and what is wrong. This is Moral Relativism and it is a dangerous moral system. Morals are not subjective to the culture or individual, they are objective and true for everyone. If rape and killing is wrong for one culture or individual, then it is wrong for all cultures and individuals.

(im not sure if nay cultures encourage unlimited rape and killing but lets play along )
you make universal claims based on your own non universal preferences

and you contradicted yourself

That's why some cultures believe raping women is ok. Some cultures believe killing is ok.

If rape and killing is wrong for one culture or individual, then it is wrong for all cultures and individuals.

in the later sentence you say one moral idea makes all different morel ideas false

but then by the same principle the pro murder rape idea would make the anti murder and rape idea false as well

your taking the one subjective stance you like and claiming it is objective for your own benefit becase thats how you want the world to be and its how you want others to think as well.

 

[quatona]

Then where do you get your morality from?

Didn´t he just explain it?