Godless Morality

[Mling]

I don't think I've ever started a thread in this forum...

Anyway, here's a question people bring up a lot, concerning atheists and others who do not follow conventional religion:

Without God, how will you tell right from wrong?
or:
If you don't believe in God, than nothing you do matters; you can kill, steal, rape and pillage without having a conscience to bother you.

Well, even when I was Christian, even when I was really at the height of my Christian beliefs, I never behaved morally, because I believed God told me too. I've never acted one way or another out of a desire for heaven or fear of hell.

Like everybody else who has ever tried, I cannot come up with a solid, logical reason why one should behave morally in the absence of religion or God.

But it doesn't matter. I behave morally because I empathize. I hurt when those around me hurt.

That's it.

When I was Christian, I sat down next to a homeless man on the street and struck up a friendship with him--not because Christ told me to, but because I know what it is like to be lonely and looked down upon.

As an agnostic, I do what I can to care for a child who I love, who is dying. Not because it is logical to do so, but because I love him and want to alleviate his pain in whatever way I can (which isn't much...)

Ultimately, a person will do what they want to do. The key to moral behavior is that the person must feel enough of a person connection to others to make them want to help. If we teach people, from childhood, that other people are useful tools to achieve "brownie points"--that, for example, we should give food to homeless people because God ordered us to do so, and so, doing so will make God happy with us--then we actually erode that process that will build truly moral people. The homeless man can't be an opportunity to give alms. The dying child can't be a chance to prove something about yourself. They must be full, whole people, in order for anything you do for them to be truly meaningful. You must be able to look at them and see yourself, and then simply do what they need done. You may one day be homeless. You may one day be dying.

Imagine a person, say, giving you a kidney, and you ask why. Which answer would make you think he is a good and moral person--"Because I love you," or "Because I was told that I must."

 

[igotbegot]

In the O.T it was moral to practice genocide, murdering unarmed women and children when your high priest said that god said to do so.

In my mind, there's not much difference between that and marauding vikings pillaging up and down the European coast. But the O.T. characters aren't seen as monsters, and that's pretty F@&ed up.

 

[Beanieboy]

I think you understand morality very well.
I don't believe that if the Bible is truly the word of God, and if God and Jesus are the 1 God, that the bible is simply a rule book of "because I'm your father, that's why!"

They are guidelines with reason.
I don't lie, not because the bible says not to (nor because of Buddhist teachings), but because I don't like to be lied to, and I know how that feels. It breaks trust, it makes you always wonder if the other is being honest, or ever being honest. Often, it is done to to cover a second transgression, and you just dig yourself deeper and deeper.

The problem is that one can either memorize countless rules, or simply love their neighbour as themselves. And this is what you have done. To me it seems fairly simple.

That is why when people start to nitpick about the morality of slavery (would you want to be enslaved?), or OT commandments to stone disobedient children, women proven not to be virgins when married, etc., they don't understand the bible at all.

Either one lives under a God of Fear and Wrath, or one who generates love from within, with whom they live with no fear, and spend time loving others, as Christ did, knowingly or unknowingly, like the Sheep and the Goats.

 

[Beanieboy]

I will add this:

A Jewish friend of mine asked me if I believed in God. I said that I wasn't sure, that it is difficult to define something as complicated as God, and I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking of a man with white hair and a long white beard sitting on throne. She said, "There has to be a God! Otherwise, we would do whatever we wanted."

I said, "Entertain this thought for a minute. There is no God. Just think about that. Now, how would you change your life? Would you kill people for entertainment? You would still wind up in jail in this life. Would you start shooting heroine? It will still affect you in this life. Would you be mean to your friends? Steal?"

Finally, she said, "No, I suppose I wouldn't do anything differently."

That is probably the case for most people.

"So, now that you know that, you can live your life in freedom, rather than fear of angering or disobeying God."

It made her think for a long time.

 

[gwenmead]

Without God, how will you tell right from wrong?

Yeah. I love that one.

What gives me pause is that we do this already. If there is no god (and, given my icon, I don't think it likely that there is), then every moral system exists on this planet without the aid of any deity already. They are all created by humans, to serve humans in our existence. (See more below.)

If you don't believe in God, than nothing you do matters; you can kill, steal, rape and pillage without having a conscience to bother you.

Love that one, too.

I suspect this is largely a projection of the questioner's own disturbing potential for sociopathy.

Like everybody else who has ever tried, I cannot come up with a solid, logical reason why one should behave morally in the absence of religion or God.

Well, here's are some thoughts on that:

People forget that humans are as social as we are selfish, and that both traits have served our survival as a species. We are successful both because we know how to serve ourselves, and because we know how to band together.

Moral systems are simply codifications of that social banding together. Law, customs, tradition, manners, and so on all serve to provide guidelines for acceptable behavior towards the other humans in your group. Religion simply adds a measure of allegedly divine legitimacy and reinforcement to the mix. Lacking compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, it makes more sense to ascribe the source of laws and morals to human agencies.

In other words, we made 'em up because we needed to.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, anyway. And no need for a deity at all.

 

[daniel777]

What gives me pause is that we do this already.

the problem with this is you assume your conclusion before you make it. good job .

Love that one, too.

I suspect this is largely a projection of the questioner's own disturbing potential for sociopathy.

damn dirty christians

well i guess from your view you could say "damn dirty apes" . ....no there isn't a point i just thought it was funny.

Well, here's are some thoughts on that:

People forget that humans are as social as we are selfish, and that both traits have served our survival as a species. We are successful both because we know how to serve ourselves, and because we know how to band together.

Moral systems are simply codifications of that social banding together. Law, customs, tradition, manners, and so on all serve to provide guidelines for acceptable behavior towards the other humans in your group. Religion simply adds a measure of allegedly divine legitimacy and reinforcement to the mix. Lacking compelling evidence for the existence of a deity, it makes more sense to ascribe the source of laws and morals to human agencies.

In other words, we made 'em up because we needed to.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, anyway. And no need for a deity at all.

yes, and in some cultures they eat each other.n

 

[gwenmead]

<insert ad homines here>

If you have a point, you're more than welcome to make it anytime.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

It's not morality, just actions. Good and evil are human concepts. Some people would hate you for abandoning logic and accepting your "morality". Not that it's bad.

 

[quatona]

I don't think I've ever started a thread in this forum...

Anyway, here's a question people bring up a lot, concerning atheists and others who do not follow conventional religion:

Without God, how will you tell right from wrong?
or:
If you don't believe in God, than nothing you do matters; you can kill, steal, rape and pillage without having a conscience to bother you.

The funny thing is that they already presuppose that to be wrong (by their supposedly godly morals) which nearly everyone feels is wrong, anyways.
Now, if the important part about morals would really be that they are objective (regardless of what they command) the argument could as well go: "Without objective morals you wouldn´t know that killing, stealing, raping and pillaging is right."
Ironically, they appeal to exactly that in us which they claim we haven´t and can´t have.

 

[quatona]

Like everybody else who has ever tried, I cannot come up with a solid, logical reason why one should behave morally in the absence of religion or God.

I have problems agreeing here.
I think I can come up with a couple of reasons for behaving morally in the absence of a god that are at least as solid and logical as the reasons for behaving morally with a god existing.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

As Beany stated earlier, the "social contract" seems to be sufficient enough in keeping us from acting too immoral.

Things such as the bible should never be completely relied on, perhaps only as a guide or stepping stone.

If heaven does not exist, then shouldn't our goal as humanity be to build our own? We very well can't do that by going around and acting like jerks now can we?

 

[Mling]

Thing about social contracts is that, sure...it's all well and good that people should try to make their own heaven, to leave a positive legacy and make the earth a better place, all that jazz. But, ultimately, that all depends on the person *caring* about such things.

Without a god (the presence or absence of which is an entirely different conversation), there really is no mechanism to force people to behave nicely or be moral. It is possible for a person to just run around raping and pillaging, and then, just before they might get caught, commit suicide and suffer no consequences for everything they did. If that is their idea of fun, then they just led one version of a perfect life--filled to the end with everything they enjoyed, and then ending at the peak, just before it would have turned unpleasant.
No logical reason for good behavior is meaningful if the person simply does not care.

So, I don't object to considering it a possibility. The problem is the idea that all people are so sociopathic that, without the fear of God, they would be this way.

Nobody behaves morally for a reason, because there is no reason that is really meaningful. I'm not even sure that people behave well because of the fear of God...because plenty of people can do vile things and come up with a view of God and religion that allows them to do so.

Ultimately, people behave morally, or not, because they feel inclined to do so. My objection is to the idea that this is fickle--that this inclination is a day by day thing that may change at any point. A person whose heart is wrenched by another person's suffering one day is not going to kill them just for the heck of it the next day.
And yet, this is the argument that a lot of people put forth. That, without God waving his finger and yelling, "You better be loving your neighbors down there," the average person would hum happily along, living peacefully for as long as it was useful to do so, and then just wake up one day and decide to rape and kill their neighbor for fun.

And yes, I do think that this is a projection of that person's own anti-social urges. A person who is defining morality by what God orders them to do is probably the sort of person who was raised to see others as opportunities to do what God ordered, and not as full humans. Nearly everybody has some urges to hurt and dominate others. For somebody who has had their empathy stunted like that, maybe the fear of God is the only thing keeping them from trying out that rape fantasy. But for me, and for most of the world, we can restrain ourselves.

 

[Mling]

The funny thing is that they already presuppose that to be wrong (by their supposedly godly morals) which nearly everyone feels is wrong, anyways.
Now, if the important part about morals would really be that they are objective (regardless of what they command) the argument could as well go: "Without objective morals you wouldn´t know that killing, stealing, raping and pillaging is right."
Ironically, they appeal to exactly that in us which they claim we haven´t and can´t have.

Huh. I'd never thought about like that before. yeah, that's kinda funny.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The old "atheism means no morality" slur is utterly without merit.

During the McCarthy Era, anticommunism smashed what remained of the old left, but in terms of manipulating public opinion, they did it by attacking one relatively minor aspect of communist doctrine: atheism. Indeed fear of atheism and lack of religion won the day for the anticommunists. They used such things as sexual liberalism under Lenin in Russia (never mind such ended when Stalin came to power) to show as one radio preacher cried, "The commonists [communists] believe the way to take over is to let people do whatever they want." BTW, this same tack was used against the French Revolution previously.

I took Ethics in Junior College and I forget the nuances between what constitutes 'ethics' and 'morality'. There is some overlap, sure. But nontheistic philosophies do emphasize ethics. See Humanist Manifestos I and II for documentation.

 

[Ramona]

I always find this discussion fascinating. I was at an international studies conference two summers ago, and someone remarked, "if you don't believe in God, then nothing's stopping you from throwing babies into the middle of the highway."

My favorite response to this was, "If the only thing stopping you from throwing babies into the middle of the highway is fear of divine retribution, you need to seek professional help."

I have more respect for people who are moral out of empathy than people who are moral by instruction.

 

[gwenmead]

Without a god (the presence or absence of which is an entirely different conversation), there really is no mechanism to force people to behave nicely or be moral.

I don't know about that. I'd say natural selection is a fairly compelling mechanism.

I think I understand the issue with the suggestion that nontheist morality is fickle, though. I don't quite get it, either.

Perhaps, on an individual level, religion is something that makes specific individuals care enough not to go around damaging their fellow human beings. If religion acts as such a stopgap, that's probably the best argument I can think of for keeping it around.

 

[Mling]

I don't know about that. I'd say natural selection is a fairly compelling mechanism.

I think I understand the issue with the suggestion that nontheist morality is fickle, though. I don't quite get it, either.

Perhaps, on an individual level, religion is something that makes specific individuals care enough not to go around damaging their fellow human beings. If religion acts as such a stopgap, that's probably the best argument I can think of for keeping it around.

but if it is creating the gaps that it then stops?

 

[StarCannon]

I don't think I've ever started a thread in this forum...

Anyway, here's a question people bring up a lot, concerning atheists and others who do not follow conventional religion:

et. all

I had something to the tune of "you see someone being murdered and you feel sick to you stomach in disgust and revulsion at the act. And then the guilt trip sets in: could I have done something?"

But it doesn't matter. I behave morally because I empathize. I hurt when those around me hurt.

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. You're a wonderful human being.

 

[quatona]

Without a god (the presence or absence of which is an entirely different conversation), there really is no mechanism to force people to behave nicely or be moral.

1. Neither is there with a god, quite obviously. Else we could immediately tell from the condition of the world whether there is a god or not: If everyone behaves nicely and morally, there is a god, if not there isn´t. With all the complaints about the immorality and evil-doing of people (which ironically comes from the same persons who bring up that argument) the case would be clear: there is no god.
Either there is no mechanism to force poeple to behave nicely and morally even with a god, or there is no god.
2. Another possible meaning of this argument is conceivable: "Without belief in a god....". But still: Do we observe people without belief in a god raping, pillaging, murdering significantly more than those with belief in a god? No. So quite obviously god-belief doesn´t come with a mechanism to force us into moral behaviour. Not even with a mechanism to help us into moral behaviour, apparently.

It is possible for a person to just run around raping and pillaging, and then, just before they might get caught, commit suicide and suffer no consequences for everything they did.

That already presupposes a particular god concept: the punishing/rewarding god. Which turns your initial statement into: "Without a punishing/rewarding god there is no incentive to escape godly punishment."
It also presupposes a god who does not offer "salvation" for repentence or any sort of "grace" and "forgiveness", for that matter. Else believers could go murdering, pillaging and raping, yet escape godly punishment, too.
It also presupposes that the existence of this god as well as his laws are punishment are known to everybody. Whilst in fact not even those who understand the same book as being the voice of god can´t seem to agree on what his commandments are.

Bottom line: If forcing or even only motivating people into moral behaviour is the advantage of a god existing (or belief in god or both), we have to conclude that it doesn´t work. You don´t have to believe in a god, and you can pick the god you want to believe in.
It would only work if all people had the same desire to believe in the same god with the same moral commandments - which is actually the same as everyone trying to be good (with just the idea of a god added).

If that is their idea of fun, then they just led one version of a perfect life--filled to the end with everything they enjoyed, and then ending at the peak, just before it would have turned unpleasant.

And herein lies the core of the misconception, imo: The notion that people enjoy being careless, that people enjoy to murder, steal, rape and pillage. The notion that anyone could think this is perfect life. The notion that anyone could become happy leading such a life, and that a god is necessary to keep people from having a fulfilled and happy life.
The misanthropy and the lack of understanding of the human psyche that such notions are founded upon is amazing. The idea that people find happiness in carelessness and atrocious behaviour and the only thing to keep them from this happiness is conditioning them like Pawlow´s dogs is not supportable by observation.

No logical reason for good behavior is meaningful if the person simply does not care.

Except maybe for a handful of wrongly wired psychopaths (who wouldn´t care about god and his eternal punishment, either, btw.), there is no such person who "doesn´t care".
The logical reason for good behaviour is exactly this: Bad behaviour will make or keep you suffering.
(On a sidenote, this is actually the only way of reading the bible that makes any sense: As an attempt to get this idea across - a metaphorical description of the human psyche, a story that explains internal mechanisms by picturing them as external. A well known technique in literature, btw.: Internal conflicts depicted as the conflicts between several persons who embody the various aspects in each single human).

So, I don't object to considering it a possibility. The problem is the idea that all people are so sociopathic that, without the fear of God, they would be this way.

Exactly. And the idea that fear of a god is a working means to motivate those people who are so sociopathic into compassionate behaviour.

Nobody behaves morally for a reason, because there is no reason that is really meaningful.

I disagree strongly, but then I am not sure I understand what you mean by "meaningful" and "really meaningful".

 

[Futuwwa]

I always find this discussion fascinating. I was at an international studies conference two summers ago, and someone remarked, "if you don't believe in God, then nothing's stopping you from throwing babies into the middle of the highway."

My favorite response to this was, "If the only thing stopping you from throwing babies into the middle of the highway is fear of divine retribution, you need to seek professional help."

And as the venerable Mark Vuletic said: Making such an argument is to hand over the debate to the atheist. Because, by doing so, the theist implicitly admits that he would do evil things if not for God, while the atheist doesn't do them regardless of not believing in God. Whereby the theist has proved his own moral inferiority.