Does morality exist without God?

[Loudmouth]

Define objective.

Something that is objective is the same from person to person. In certain epistemologies it may be better described as intersubjective.

That's not sufficient. In consequentialism one needs to be able to compare the good/ill produced by different actions on different people.

What differences are you referring to?

"This will produce some good/ill" is not suffient to make choices". How does one compare the impact this action will have on this individual compared to other individuals and the communities, compared with alternative choices?

By putting yourself in their shoes and determining what effect those actions will have.

How does one chose the ill of this choice verses the different ill on different people/communities of that choice? How does one prioritise ill verses good? How does one prioritise individuals verses communities?

Depends on the situation.

Experience of discussions ferreting it out suggests that it always turns out to be incoherent.

So we should just quit here?

 

[ebia]

Something that is objective is the same from person to person. In certain epistemologies it may be better described as intersubjective.

Empathy is the same from person to person but revealed fact is not?
And how is deciding on consequentialism over then other modes objective?

What differences are you referring to?

Western cultures prioritise the individual. Most others prioritise the community.
How do you decide which is worse - the death (say) of one person verses a small harm to each of one million people?
How do you decide which is worse - mental anguish or physical pain?
How do you decide which is worse - the status quo or John receiving x benefit while Joan receives y harm?

By putting yourself in their shoes and determining what effect those actions will have.

That doesn't hep compare apples and oranges, which consequentialism requires.

 

[quatona]

The whole point is that they don't all work back from consequences, that's why they differ. . In virtue ethics a virtue is just that: actions derive their morality from virtues, not from consequences. An action is morally good if it is what a virtuous person would do in that situation.

And based on what criteria do they determine what a virtuous person would do in a given situation?

In deontology actions simpy are right or wrong.

And what renders them right or wrong?

We wouldn't have more than 2000 years of deep moral philisophy if it all boiled down to consequentialism.

I am under the impression that - even though there are different approaches to morality - they all have consequentialism hidden in them.
It has always struck me as interesting that in these discussions even the most die hard consequentialists at some point come up with statements like "...but if....then genocide wouldn´t be wrong/raping children wouldn´t be wrong.", and then accuse their opponents of being un-empathic or sociopathic.
Or they say "...everything would be permitted." as though it would be obvious why that is a bad thing in the absence of consequentialist considerations.

 

[quatona]

That's not sufficient. In consequentialism one needs to be able to compare the good/ill produced by different actions on different people. "This will produce some good/ill" is not suffient to make choices". How does one compare the impact this action will have on this individual compared to other individuals and the communities, compared with alternative choices? How does one chose the ill of this choice verses the different ill on different people/communities of that choice? How does one prioritise ill verses good? How does one prioritise individuals verses communities?

Yes, it´s not an easy task - if that was your point.
And you didn´t even mention
a. the problem of reliably predicting outcomes
b. the problem of retrospectively determining which part an action really played in the outcome (and how things would have went differently had we acted differently)
c. the problem of time: from which point in time in the future are we hypothetically looking when calculating "the ill vs. the good" produced.

Yes, it isn´t easy. This fact doesn´t invalidate the approach, though.

 

[ebia]

Yes, it´s not an easy task - if that was your point.
And you didn´t even mention
a. the problem of reliably predicting outcomes
b. the problem of retrospectively determining which part an action really played in the outcome (and how things would have went differently had we acted differently)
c. the problem of time: from which point in time in the future are we hypothetically looking when calculating "the ill vs. the good" produced.

Yes, it isn´t easy. This fact doesn´t invalidate the approach, though.

I didn't say the approach was invalid. I said that it ends up with "because ... says so" (or completely unacknowledged assumptions) as the average theistic approach.

I don't think consequentialism is actually practical because of the issues I've mentioned and those you've mentioned, and others (there are classic examples where most people reject the "greatest good for the greatest outcome") but that wasn't the question I was addressing.

 

[quatona]

I didn't say the approach was invalid. I said that it ends up with "because ... says so" (or completely unacknowledged assumptions) as the average theistic approach.

I don't think consequentialism is actually practical because of the issues I've mentioned and those you've mentioned, and others (there are classic examples where most people reject the "greatest good for the greatest outcome") but that wasn't the question I was addressing.

I´m sorry, but nowhere in your post could I see the deduction from your (agreed upon) descriptions of the problems to the conclusion that the consequentialist approach necessarily ends up with "because...says so".
Could you explain that for me, please?

 

[Loudmouth]

Empathy is the same from person to person but revealed fact is not?

What are you getting at?

And how is deciding on consequentialism over then other modes objective?

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Western cultures prioritise the individual. Most others prioritise the community.

And look at how we view those communities as immoral. Why? Because we empathize with those whose rights are taken away. That is the whole reason for the changes we have made in the west where it concerns human rights, from women's suffrage through the civil rights movement.

How do you decide which is worse - the death (say) of one person verses a small harm to each of one million people?

The death of one person is obviously worse in that situation. I wouldn't expect one person to die just so that I would not get punched in the arm if those were the choices.

How do you decide which is worse - mental anguish or physical pain?

Both are bad. There is no need to differentiate between the two.

How do you decide which is worse - the status quo or John receiving x benefit while Joan receives y harm?

Depends on the status quo, teh benefit, and the harm.

That doesn't hep compare apples and oranges, which consequentialism requires.

Then why are you using consequentialism?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

i guess these are signs of the time...


we are seeing alot of lawlessness today..

hm hm


self evident on TV
MAGAZINES..
RADIO
NEWSPaper
internet portals... and etc..

 

[Desk trauma]

we are seeing alot of lawlessness today..

self evident on TV
MAGAZINES..
RADIO
NEWSPaper
internet portals... and etc..

Yet oddly not evident in crime statistics with the continued fall in violent crime...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

How did you determine that what God commands is moral? What criteria did you use?

How can I say that God is holy, God is and always has been, God is our creator and not believe that he has perfect morality and is not all wise? Criteria? Read his word.

You misunderstood Loudmouth's question. Not to put words in Loud's mouth but, the question isn't where the morality came from,(which you say is his word) but how do you know it is the right thing to do.

Lets take a simple commandment, Thou shalt not kill
How do you know that it is wrong to kill? I really hope your answer isn't some variation of, "because the bible says don't do it!" Because then it would simply be obedience. Like a robot.

I for example, as a non-believer in the bible(in anybody's bible) take thou shalt not kill very seriously. As a strict pacifist, I hope that no one ever dies at my hands because of my actions. I believe war is murder, though sometimes necessary. But I could never fight in a war, not when we have words.

How did I, a person who doesn't believe in the bible, come up with such an idea like, 'don't kill people'? Because I value my life and I have good reason to believe others value theirs as well. I don't need the bible or god to tell me this, most people on earth understand this simple concept.

That is an example of morality without god. You need only to take a look at how beautiful life is, to know you shouldn't deny anyone of that privilege we've all been given.

God's laws are absolute. You are skewing the term relativism cause God's laws never change they are not relative to changing government or societies or anything of this world.

They do change because only humans are here to interpret god's laws. Humans kinda suck at this sometimes. Most of the time actually.

In my belief there is one God, one book {the bible) and thats my beliefs.

and many share your beliefs, and many don't. Who's right and who's wrong? We only find out when were gone.

 

[TomZzyzx]

You misunderstood Loudmouth's question. Not to put words in Loud's mouth but, the question isn't where the morality came from,(which you say is his word) but how do you know it is the right thing to do.

Lets take a simple commandment, Thou shalt not kill
How do you know that it is wrong to kill? I really hope your answer isn't some variation of, "because the bible says don't do it!" Because then it would simply be obedience. Like a robot.

I for example, as a non-believer in the bible(in anybody's bible) take thou shalt not kill very seriously. As a strict pacifist, I hope that no one ever dies at my hands because of my actions. I believe war is murder, though sometimes necessary. But I could never fight in a war, not when we have words.

How did I, a person who doesn't believe in the bible, come up with such an idea like, 'don't kill people'? Because I value my life and I have good reason to believe others value theirs as well. I don't need the bible or god to tell me this, most people on earth understand this simple concept.

That is an example of morality without god. You need only to take a look at how beautiful life is, to know you shouldn't deny anyone of that privilege we've all been given.

They do change because only humans are here to interpret god's laws. Humans kinda suck at this sometimes. Most of the time actually.

and many share your beliefs, and many don't. Who's right and who's wrong? We only find out when were gone.

That simple commandment is not thou shalt not kill but "you shall not murder".

You came up with the idea that murder is wrong because you discovered, like most people, an objective moral truth. That murder is wrong.

That's actually an example of understanding an objective moral truth that God established.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That simple commandment is not thou shalt not kill but "you shall not murder".

My mistake. Either way murder is killing, however killing an animal for food or a man in self defense is not the same as killing a man in cold blood.

You came up with the idea that murder is wrong because you discovered, like most people, an objective moral truth. That murder is wrong.

the question is how do you know it is wrong and not, right. Another way to put it is, why would you(hopefully) feel bad if you killed someone? I don't believe I'd go to hell if I killed someone, but I still don't kill because I value human life. I don't want to die, I'm guessing others share this feeling. It's simple.

Here's where you take the leap O' faith,

That's actually an example of understanding an objective moral truth that God established.

I say man established this extremely simple concept of respecting another's life.
No need for omniscient deities.

 

[lupusFati]

Empathy is the same from person to person but revealed fact is not?
And how is deciding on consequentialism over then other modes objective?

I know you're not the one saying this (I think) but I can personally say that empathy is not the same from person to person to person. I am mind-blind, which means that I miss about 80% of communication when talking to someone. Empathy isn't non-existent for me and I am fully capable of placing myself into anothers' shoes, but it is harder for me to decipher meaning when I am blind to most, if not all, non-verbal communication.

Now, the me that is not affected by my different brain also has a hard time putting himself in others' shoes if those particular people were engaging in activities that would inevitably and obviously lead to their own misfortune. I also have a hard time putting myself in others' shoes if they do something I find particularly gruesome, while others would sympathize with their 'cause'.

So yeah. Two cents, bluh bluh bluh.

Now, as for morality... whether it exists with or without God is none of my concern. I accept both sides as one whole, both 'good' and 'evil'. Duality.

 

[LogicDreamer]

I know you're not the one saying this (I think) but I can personally say that empathy is not the same from person to person to person. I am mind-blind, which means that I miss about 80% of communication when talking to someone. Empathy isn't non-existent for me and I am fully capable of placing myself into anothers' shoes, but it is harder for me to decipher meaning when I am blind to most, if not all, non-verbal communication.

Whether or not you are unable to easily understand methods of social interaction is irrelevant if you can still forge relationships grounded in empathy.

Now, the me that is not affected by my different brain also has a hard time putting himself in others' shoes if those particular people were engaging in activities that would inevitably and obviously lead to their own misfortune. I also have a hard time putting myself in others' shoes if they do something I find particularly gruesome, while others would sympathize with their 'cause'.

This is also part of empathy. Both empathy and "justice" or "fairness" have been found to have core biological components among all social animals, including us.

So yeah. Two cents, bluh bluh bluh.

So far, you two cents have been interesting and engaging. Thanks for sharing them.

Now, as for morality... whether it exists with or without God is none of my concern. I accept both sides as one whole, both 'good' and 'evil'. Duality.

There is no "good" and "evil". There is only "socially damaging" or "not socially damaging". What benefits the majority is often what is considered the moral standard. It is, essentially, subtle social Darwinism at work. Examples can be found among all social species, with hundreds of verified scientific studies. Frans de Waal and his team have discovered that chimpanzees reconcile after fights, elephants and chimpanzees share food, wolves mourn the deaths of their fellow members.

The only objective component to morality is, deep down, what is beneficial for the majority.

 

[TomZzyzx]

My mistake. Either way murder is killing, however killing an animal for food or a man in self defense is not the same as killing a man in cold blood.

the question is how do you know it is wrong and not, right. Another way to put it is, why would you(hopefully) feel bad if you killed someone? I don't believe I'd go to hell if I killed someone, but I still don't kill because I value human life. I don't want to die, I'm guessing others share this feeling. It's simple.

Here's where you take the leap O' faith,

I say man established this extremely simple concept of respecting another's life.
No need for omniscient deities.

That's right, killing a man in could blood would be murder. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. The first would be immoral and the second would not.

The bible says we go to hell because we are not good. We are sinners. And the only way to escape hell would be to accept Jesus' sacrifice for us.

It's not a leap of faith but a trust in his Word.

And I say we discover moral truths like we discover mathematics.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's right, killing a man in could blood would be murder. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. The first would be immoral and the second would not.

Why? That is the question.

The bible says we go to hell because we are not good. We are sinners. And the only way to escape hell would be to accept Jesus' sacrifice for us.

That has nothing to do with where morality comes from.

It's not a leap of faith but a trust in his Word.

It's a leap O' faith to say the idea; "don't kill people" was handed down to us from a magical being of supreme intelligence. As if humans never could have figured it out on their own to not kill each other. Sure, there is percentage of the population that doesn't care either way and they have no problem killing a person, but most people on earth oppose killing people.

And I say we discover moral truths like we discover mathematics.

You still miss the question. Why is it wrong? Why? WHY?
Why is cold blooded murder wrong but self defense justified? Is it only because God says so? When you realize why it's bad to kill someone, you'll understand why there's no need for God to tell you not to do it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why? That is the question.

That has nothing to do with where morality comes from.

It's a leap O' faith to say the idea; "don't kill people" was handed down to us from a magical being of supreme intelligence. As if humans never could have figured it out on their own to not kill each other. Sure, there is percentage of the population that doesn't care either way and they have no problem killing a person, but most people on earth oppose killing people.

You still miss the question. Why is it wrong? Why? WHY?
Why is cold blooded murder wrong but self defense justified? Is it only because God says so? When you realize why it's bad to kill someone, you'll understand why there's no need for God to tell you not to do it.

Two reasons why murder is wrong and justified killing is right, because the law says so and because God has said so.

I never said it had to do with where morality comes from.

The reason humans figure out murder (unjustified killing) is wrong (immoral) is because they have discovered an objective moral truth that God has established. It has nothing to do with a leap of faith.

You don't have to believe in God to discover why murder is wrong.

 

[lupusFati]

Whether or not you are unable to easily understand methods of social interaction is irrelevant if you can still forge relationships grounded in empathy.

I'm not always 100% sure I'm able to, but perhaps I'm being pessimistic about it. About the only people that might qualify would be my family. Strangers, while I can be nice or consider them 'friends', I have more trouble with. I even was involved with someone but I never sensed they were unhappy with what I was or wasn't doing... I'm still not sure what I did wrong.

This is also part of empathy. Both empathy and "justice" or "fairness" have been found to have core biological components among all social animals, including us.

Mkay, good to know.

So far, you two cents have been interesting and engaging. Thanks for sharing them.

I try. Even if half the time I just talk out my rear.

There is no "good" and "evil". There is only "socially damaging" or "not socially damaging". What benefits the majority is often what is considered the moral standard. It is, essentially, subtle social Darwinism at work. Examples can be found among all social species, with hundreds of verified scientific studies. Frans de Waal have discovered that chimpanzees reconcile after fights, elephants and chimpanzees share food, wolves mourn the deaths of their fellow members.

The only objective component to morality is, deep down, what is beneficial for the majority.

I find myself agreeing. Perhaps I just don't have a full understanding of it yet or perhaps I can't explain it properly. It is still a rather new ideology to me but, at the same time, I am probably learning from a different source than you. So there may be differences as a result.

I can't find fault with it, however. So meh.

 

[LogicDreamer]

I'm not always 100% sure I'm able to, but perhaps I'm being pessimistic about it. About the only people that might qualify would be my family. Strangers, while I can be nice or consider them 'friends', I have more trouble with. I even was involved with someone but I never sensed they were unhappy with what I was or wasn't doing... I'm still not sure what I did wrong.

That is, again, the result of biological empathy. Social animals place value based on intimacy and close contact. Wolves would rather save those in their own pack, before saving any other pack's. It comes down to survival of the social group you are familiar with.

I find myself agreeing. Perhaps I just don't have a full understanding of it yet or perhaps I can't explain it properly. It is still a rather new ideology to me but, at the same time, I am probably learning from a different source than you. So there may be differences as a result.

I assure you that everything I just said is verifiable and consistent with conclusive scientific studies. The evolutionary biological components of morality and empathy are demonstrable fact.

I can't find fault with it, however. So meh.

Great!

 

[lupusFati]

That is, again, the result of biological empathy. Social animals place value based on intimacy and close contact. Wolves would rather save those in their own pack, before saving any other pack's. It comes down to survival of the social group you are familiar with.

True I suppose. I would be more willing to save my own family members than those of another if it came down to it. Though I hope I'm never put into that kind of situation, personally.

I assure you that everything I just said is verifiable and consistent with conclusive scientific studies. The evolutionary biological components of morality and empathy are demonstrable fact.

I meant the concept of social something... what'd you call it? Darwinism? Bluh. Survival of the fittest, let's go with that. The way I'm learning is that it's more a mentality and/or way of being. Though I'd have to read it again to be sure I got that right...

Eh sorry, I'm not being too helpful or clear eheh.

Great!

Mkay then.