Does morality exist without God?

[MattiMuck]

Or... they're all varying degrees of wrong.

So, there is no right way. Everything is wrong...

 

[Lethe]

Not necessarily. You were referencing moral codes. Eg collections of rules regarding what is moral. Sets of rules may be wrong, but there may be a proper set.

 

[MattiMuck]

Not necessarily. You were referencing moral codes. Eg collections of rules regarding what is moral. Sets of rules may be wrong, but there may be a proper set.

I believe there is a proper set...

Salvation is far from a chess game or a game of any sort. The moves you can make in Chess do vary, but they never contradict. Jesus claimed He is the only way to salvation. This is the goal of the Christian and the desired destiny (by God) for everyone. If Jesus is the only way and He is God, then everything he said and believed in must be true. That is the contents of the Bible, which contains a morality with similar aspects of other religions or doctrines, but ultimately meet at a contradiction at some point, and at this point they part ways keeping in mind Jesus' words, that He is the only way. Therefore, the righteousness of Jesus is strived for and revered by Christians via living out the morality taught in the Bible.

 

[multidaytim]

there is morality without god. I would argue that everyone belonging to this forum is moral without god.

Secular morality is more complicated than a theology because we have to do the work to figure out what the best actions are rather than just taking them from a book and following it without thought.

What is good? that which is beneficial to any affected (may be subjective)
What is bad? that which does harm to any affected
What is best? that which does the most good while doing the least harm to all affected
What is worst? that which does the most harm while doing the least good to all affected

'god' is not necessary to discern what is good or bad, and though we may not be able to discern the best action in every case, we are no doubt able to discern what the better actions may be.

 

[Khatru]

there is morality without god. I would argue that everyone belonging to this forum is moral without god.

Secular morality is more complicated than a theology because we have to do the work to figure out what the best actions are rather than just taking them from a book and following it without thought.

What is good? that which is beneficial to any affected (may be subjective)
What is bad? that which does harm to any affected
What is best? that which does the most good while doing the least harm to all affected
What is worst? that which does the most harm while doing the least good to all affected

'god' is not necessary to discern what is good or bad, and though we may not be able to discern the best action in every case, we are no doubt able to discern what the better actions may be.

Nicely put.

Whenever someone quotes something from the Bible which they think is representative of good morals, they are demonstrating that their morality comes from within themselves and not from any god.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Bad example. In game theory, chess is a non-stochastic (no randomness), discrete (countable or finite strategy space), game where the players have perfect information (know all the rules). And therefore it is exactly solvable. It hasn't been solved yet, but it can be said that there exists a winning (or draw) branch of the game tree at move one, given perfect play from your competition. So in a sense, there is a perfect strategy.[/URL]

I agree with what you say about chess, and I am familiar with game theory.

The reason my example is a reasonably good one is that I'm talking about human players, not computer players (or mentats like this guy: )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7IKPRFKqwg

Human players operating at the Grandmaster level have achieved excellence at playing chess in a particularly human way, which does not involve iterating through trees of possible moves and being aware of what might happen hundreds of moves into the game. I'm not a Grandmaster myself (or even far beyond a beginner at the game), but I assume that they mainly use some kind of rules of thumb that they have gained from experience, intuition, and direct examination, not perform a tree search in a computer-like fashion.

My point here is that Grandmasters may be roughly equivalent in potency at the game of chess, but may nevertheless have different styles of play. They may prefer different openings, have a different way of approaching endgames, and the like. If they ever face a computer potent enough, perhaps all that they can ever achieve will, at most, be a draw.

With that in mind, I think my example is a pretty good one. It's not a perfect analogy to life, of course, but since even Grandmasters are not computers, there is that uncertainty in play that somewhat resembles the uncertainty in life, even if it is not precisely the same.

For that reason, human beings that function at a "Grandmaster" level of virtue may potentially have different styles of approaching life that are nevertheless roughly equal in potency. If they ever run across a mentat, they might just be outclassed, although mentats would be approaching life in an oddly non-human sort of way. Virtue ethics as it currently exists might not apply to the mentat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

there is morality without god. I would argue that everyone belonging to this forum is moral without god.

In fact I'd argue that anyone who bases their morality solely on "what God said goes" is not a moral person at all... it's clear their basis for morality is obedience, not empathy.

 

[Khatru]

In fact I'd argue that anyone who bases their morality solely on "what God said goes" is not a moral person at all... it's clear their basis for morality is obedience, not empathy.

I've often though that.

It's a simple case of "might makes right"; which explains why Abraham was going to kill his son.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In fact I'd argue that anyone who bases their morality solely on "what God said goes" is not a moral person at all... it's clear their basis for morality is obedience, not empathy.

I'm not exactly certain how empathy is a basis for morality, but I agree that obedience is certainly not that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[hdssh]

Morality in any absolute sense needs an absolute external reference. What absolute external reference could exist except God.

Otherwise any morality is merely a preference, and the prevailing morality is the choice of those who hold the power - which *may* be an absolute morality, but likely is some morality of convenience mixed with historical elements of absolutism.

hdssh.weebly.com/1/post/2013/08/mind-the-gap.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Morality in any absolute sense needs an absolute external reference. What absolute external reference could exist except God.

Otherwise any morality is merely a preference, and the prevailing morality is the choice of those who hold the power - which *may* be an absolute morality, but likely is some morality of convenience mixed with historical elements of absolutism.

hdssh.weebly.com/1/post/2013/08/mind-the-gap.html

The natural assumption of religious apologists seems to be that only a deity could provide an external reason (or reference) for moral action. The philosopher McDowell argues for "external reasons for action" without appealing to the supernatural.

 

[hdssh]

The natural assumption of religious apologists seems to be that only a deity could provide an external reason (or reference) for moral action. The philosopher McDowell argues for "external reasons for action" without appealing to the supernatural.

Yes ... I agree in that there are *reasons*. But morality implies personality, else its an aspect of the physical universe with no intrinsic meaning. An external morality-defining personality that is sub-universal is also only a big reason, but it can be be argued with. So for absolute morality, i.e. non-relativistic (because relativistic morality is merely preference), we need something extra-universal.

An external personality that is extra-universal, well, we have no language for that other than "God".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes ... I agree in that there are *reasons*. But morality implies personality, else its an aspect of the physical universe with no intrinsic meaning. An external morality-defining personality that is sub-universal is also only a big reason, but it can be be argued with. So for absolute morality, i.e. non-relativistic (because relativistic morality is merely preference), we need something extra-universal.

An external personality that is extra-universal, well, we have no language for that other than "God".

Personality can vary, which would seem to undermine the absoluteness you intend to convey with your argument. A morality-defining personality doesn't guarantee that the morality it defines will remain absolute and consistent. The personality can change its mind, perhaps even arbitrarily.

 

[hdssh]

Personality can vary, which would seem to undermine the absoluteness you intend to convey with your argument. A morality-defining personality doesn't guarantee that the morality it defines will remain absolute and consistent. The personality can change its mind, perhaps even arbitrarily.

Agreed ... but the extra-universal personality ... variable or not, is still an absolute reference. Its an interesting side avenue to consider if the fact that a personality can vary, necessarily means it will vary. But I don't think that issue changes the primary point.

 

[multidaytim]

Morality in any absolute sense needs an absolute external reference. What absolute external reference could exist except God.

Otherwise any morality is merely a preference, and the prevailing morality is the choice of those who hold the power - which *may* be an absolute morality, but likely is some morality of convenience mixed with historical elements of absolutism.

hdssh.weebly.com/1/post/2013/08/mind-the-gap.html

what is good? that which is beneficial to any affected
what is bad? that which harms any affected.
what is best? that which is the most beneficial to the highest number of people, while harming the fewest.
what is worst? that which is the most harmful to the highest number of people, while being beneficial to the fewest.

in any circumstance, there are a finite number of possible actions that can be taken. Some of those may will be objectively better than others, and a small set will be objectively the best action that can be taken.
We might not always know what that is in every case, but we can no doubt discern what the better actions are.
And with that.... Objective morality and no god required.

and consider divine command theory..... Is it good because god commands it? or does god command it because it is good?
Think about that.... the first option ends up being 'might makes right'. murder would be wrong, not because life is important, or how it would affect others, or any empathetical reasons.... the only reason it would be wrong is he said it is. When he commands the slaughter of man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey (Amalekites) it is 'good' no matter what you would feel about the wholesale slaughter. So too would be the command to kill your rebellious child... empathy, compassion and love would not matter.

The second option, (he commands it because it is good), morality exists apart from him and he was just smart enough to figure it out to tell us. If this is the case, we probably don't need him for us to figure out what is right and wrong.

Secular morality is more difficult than following a book, and requires much more thought, but you can see the issues arising from divine command theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Agreed ... but the extra-universal personality ... variable or not, is still an absolute reference. Its an interesting side avenue to consider if the fact that a personality can vary, necessarily means it will vary. But I don't think that issue changes the primary point.

If it is variable, then it is not an absolute reference. An absolute reference would, by definition, remain constant. That personality can vary does not mean that it will vary. But the possibility of variability alone would have me doubting whether any morality that has its basis in some sort of personality is indeed 'absolute' in the true sense of the word. The potential for change, for variation, seems sufficient enough to bring the claim into doubt.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Morality in any absolute sense needs an absolute external reference. What absolute external reference could exist except God.

Human well-being, which is natural and objective in that it is what it is regardless of what we might want or believe it to be.

I suppose that was a rhetorical question on your part, but you asked.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Nothing exists apart from God.

 

[Khatru]

Nothing exists apart from God.

I may be inclined to believe you if you were actually able to demonstrate that your god does exist.

Perhaps it may help if you defined your god for me.

 

[hdssh]

If it is variable, then it is not an absolute reference. An absolute reference would, by definition, remain constant. That personality can vary does not mean that it will vary. But the possibility of variability alone would have me doubting whether any morality that has its basis in some sort of personality is indeed 'absolute' in the true sense of the word. The potential for change, for variation, seems sufficient enough to bring the claim into doubt.

Well, I think what I said was "the extra-universal personality ... variable or not, is still an absolute reference"-- that is, I am referring to a personality that is extra-universal as the absolute reference. In a very crude analogy, my spouse is variable in expression, but undeniably is absolutely my spouse regardless of expression, and likewise undeniably an absolute reference in my marriage. This is important if we are talking about God, because morality in my framework is intrinsically tied to personality and thus only of relevance if I can be in relationship.

Of course, if there is no extra-universe personality, let hedonism reign!

Again in my framework of reasoning, all of this discussion on morality is predicated on a) is there a God, b) does the God have a personality, and c) is that personality knowable in relationship. Negation of any of these and we're back to lets have fun while we can and blow the consequences. My personal story of life convinces me that (a)-(c) are all true, and to deny my life's experience I have to find an at least comparable rational explanation for what I have known. So far, that alternative explanation seems to be missing.