Godless Morality

[Mling]

Re: Quatona--yes, I'm presupposing a lot. And, ultimately, I'm not arguing very much. But it boils down to just this: If no god exists, then there can be no third-party, objective standard by which to judge moral behavior. Whether a god would reward or punish, redeem or anything else, any theoretical god would,
at the very least, be able to provide an outsider's view of human behavior, untainted by cultural mores or early childhood trauma or anything else that influences humans' views of the world.

That much, I do believe.

People can make of that what they want, and clearly, you are right that it doesn't do much to influence human behavior. People create their own gods who generally approve of what they do. So, it isn't God, or the belief in God, that motivates good behavior.

When I describe somebody living a "perfect life" by pillaging and then committing suicide, or somebody simply "not caring," I am, of course, describing a theoretical possibility.

So, what do I mean when I say that nobody behaves well for a reason, because no reason is truly meaningful? I mean that every reason a person could come up with will do nothing to influence that complete sociopath who simply doesn't care. You can read as much Kant or John Stewart Mill as you want. Come up with your own reasons for why humans should be a particular way and live by it. But ultimately, nobody lives by those philosophies, because of the philosophies--neither God nor ethical reasoning is sufficient to convert the theoretical person who doesn't care, and a person who does care will never follow a philosophy that violates their internal sense of morality simply because the logic is sound. It is the caring, not the reason, that determines behavior.

Any reason people conceive of, logical or divine, to guide behavior does little more than describe what people already feel is true. The philosophy and religion does nothing but add structure to our feelings--we come up with these things because emotion is considered fickle and unreliable. And yet...it is that emotion that determines which view of god a person will consider true or which philosophy they decide to follow. Ultimately, it is little more than that emotion that holds a person to moral behavior, and any attempt to alter it or "improve" on it is actually counterproductive because such systems tend to degrade a person's ability to empathize.

 

[quatona]

Mling, I am not necessarily arguing, either. Some of my comments are to be read as additions to what you wrote, some as caveats. We seem to - by and large - agree on the conclusions. We do not entirely agree on the way we get there, and - from my perspective - you accept some premises of theistic thinking that I refuse to accept because I think they are false.

But it boils down to just this: If no god exists, then there can be no third-party, objective standard by which to judge moral behavior.

Correct, but so what?
If humans don´t have wings they can´t spread them and fly. What is that an argument for?
And - that is my main point - things practically aren´t any better with a god existing.

Whether a god would reward or punish, redeem or anything else, any theoretical god would,
at the very least, be able to provide an outsider's view of human behavior, untainted by cultural mores or early childhood trauma or anything else that influences humans' views of the world.

And this outsider´s view (unless we clearly know what it is) would help with what exactly?
And even if we knew the outsider´s opinion - would we necessarily care? If, hypothetically, this outsider´s view would command you to rape, steal and murder - would you do it?

People can make of that what they want, and clearly, you are right that it doesn't do much to influence human behavior. People create their own gods who generally approve of what they do. So, it isn't God, or the belief in God, that motivates good behavior.

Yup. How can it possibly be any different?

When I describe somebody living a "perfect life" by pillaging and then committing suicide, or somebody simply "not caring," I am, of course, describing a theoretical possibility.

I know. But firstly this possibility is not really wide-spread, and secondly the behaviour of these people won´t be affected by (the idea of) a god existing any more than by anything else.
On another note, the argument "without a god you wouldn´t know..." pictures psycho- and sociopathy as the default state of humans, which it clearly isn´t. It´s like giving a strong drug to everybody just because it has been shown to improve the lives of a handful of persons suffering from a rare disease. Except that in the question at hand this has not even been shown.

So, what do I mean when I say that nobody behaves well for a reason, because no reason is truly meaningful? I mean that every reason a person could come up with will do nothing to influence that complete sociopath who simply doesn't care. You can read as much Kant or John Stewart Mill as you want. Come up with your own reasons for why humans should be a particular way and live by it. But ultimately, nobody lives by those philosophies, because of the philosophies--neither God nor ethical reasoning is sufficient to convert the theoretical person who doesn't care, and a person who does care will never follow a philosophy that violates their internal sense of morality simply because the logic is sound.

Completely agreed, but then again a person will never follow a god that violates their internal sense of morality, either.

It is the caring, not the reason, that determines behavior.

I´m not sure I agree, Mling. Of course, if you don´t care for anything at all, nothing will help (not even the idea of a god existing).
Not to engage in semantics, but you have reduced "reason" to philosophy. I, however, think it can be demonstrated concretely and practically how considering the well-being of others benefits not only them but yourself. Without any mystical or spiritual hocus-pocus, but with reason and logic.

Any reason people conceive of, logical or divine, to guide behavior does little more than describe what people already feel is true. The philosophy and religion does nothing but add structure to our feelings--we come up with these things because emotion is considered fickle and unreliable. And yet...it is that emotion that determines which view of god a person will consider true or which philosophy they decide to follow. Ultimately, it is little more than that emotion that holds a person to moral behavior, and any attempt to alter it or "improve" on it is actually counterproductive because such systems tend to degrade a person's ability to empathize.

I´m not sure I understand completely, but if I understand correctly I disagree.
I feel that it would be a good idea to unlink our ethics from philosophy as well as from emotions. Sharpening our awareness is the key, imo.

 

[m9lc]

Often, when I explain social contracts and punishment and such to Christians, they just say "So, really, your morals are all just based on selfish aims!" And somehow they fail to see how hypocritical that statement is.

 

[quatona]

As long as I see threads like "Burning Sodomites - Holy and Right?" from theists I can´t help feeling that we can do without a god or belief in a god as our guide to ethical behaviour just fine.

 

[Skavau]

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.

Except the above is entirely in error. Most people do have a conscience and most people consider that their actions do in fact effect others. The existence of law-abiding Atheists is enough to counter this claim.

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.

This is the error. There is difference between self-serving logic (logic only used to advance one's own interests) and moral logic. There is a key difference between the two.

Presume scenario X. In this Scenario, Person A has by accident obtained the financial details of an individual. Person A knows that he can easily obtain these details without getting caught. Should Person A do it? It is arguably in Person A's interest to bolster his financial status and there it is logically self-serving. Is it however, in the interests of the individual who will lose all of his or her money from it? The moment you ignore that individual and decide that it is in your interests, you are no longer considering ethics but you are just considering yourself.

All ethical decisions must involve a community to actually be at all considered ethical. This can range from two people negotiating a sexual encounter, to the rules of a family, to the rules of a council or the rules of a government. They are codified agreements amongst a community designed entirely to secure their communal interests or values.

This of course, does not actually answer why be moral when you can serve yourself - but one logical reason is simply that the self-serving value of all decisions such as the one Person X finds himself in rely upon a community which value moral imperatives and value co-operation. Should that co-operation collapse and everyone serve themselves, then the amount to gain from amoral selfishness plummets infinitely.

 

[Texas Lynn]

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 tried to give you rep points for this but couldn't.

But suppose for a second this was true: that god was so incredibly stupid and corrupt he would only allow into heaven people who dotted their i's and crossed their t's. Who of any quality at all would want to go there? Of what use would be an eternity with a beatific vision of such an evil and stupid god? Better to suffer eternal torment than the knowledge you only got into hebbin because you didn't forget to dot that last i.

 

[selfinflikted]

As long as I see threads like "Burning Sodomites - Holy and Right?" from theists I can´t help feeling that we can do without a god or belief in a god as our guide to ethical behaviour just fine.

Seconded x 1000. Threads like the one you mention only solidify my realization that man did indeed create god in his own image - not the other way around.

 

[tcampen]

Often, when I explain social contracts and punishment and such to Christians, they just say "So, really, your morals are all just based on selfish aims!" And somehow they fail to see how hypocritical that statement is.

Whether one admits to relying on themself for ultimate morality or claiming morality comes from a particular notion of God, the source is still one's self. The evidence comes directly from those who claim this external source for morality.

Take a look at bible-believing christians who claim to rely the same God for their morality, and then plug in any host of the moral issues of the day, such as: war, the poor, capital punishment, sexuality & reproduction, and so on. You will find sincere, informed and bible-based differences of opinion as to God's position on all of these issues, and countless more.

What else can account for these contrary positions of God than the individual's choices of morality? Of course these people will continue to point to the other and declare that person wrong, but I've yet to see a convincing, objective argument for such.

The bottom line is, morality is based on the desired outcomes - whether certain behaviors produce the results we want as a community. It's a complex issue to be sure, and we shouldn't dumb it down by just saying "God wants our choice to be X" without a rational basis for such. And if there is a rational basis that makes one choice more moral than another, then what is the need for God to be the basis of that choice at all?

Think of it this way: in the western world, for example, criminal laws generally codify what is moral or immoral, such as acts of violence, theft, dishonesty, destruction of property, etc. But these laws are created and passed into law not because they match up with any sacred text, but because they make sense. There's a rational basis for the law that can be analyzed. If we can codify such moral behavior based on reason alone, why can't we determine other issue of morality that are less than criminal also with the use of reason?

 

[Futuwwa]

Think of it this way: in the western world, for example, criminal laws generally codify what is moral or immoral, such as acts of violence, theft, dishonesty, destruction of property, etc. But these laws are created and passed into law not because they match up with any sacred text, but because they make sense. There's a rational basis for the law that can be analyzed. If we can codify such moral behavior based on reason alone, why can't we determine other issue of morality that are less than criminal also with the use of reason?

Because reason alone is insufficient to make moral judgements. You need to determine a fundamental axiomatic basis which all morality is to be based on at first. Only then can you use reason to deduce what morals work best towards achieving that basis.

 

[Verv]

Godless morality is basically something that can go any way it wants to go. It has no real standard.

Communists had no God and they murdered probably over 100 million people in the 20th century (and are still murdering in North Korea, Vietnam and Burma).

Fascism was founded on a lot of fundamentally anti-religious ideas (with the exception of the Croatian Ustashas) and also murdered.

Because there is no God there is no absolute and the morality is up to solely the individual; having no God to exact proper behavior out of the followers and no good message man is free to pursue his own goals and his own will without any hindrance at all.

Sometimes it produced wise people who have done nothing wrong. Sometimes absolute murderers.

Yet in a sense it is not entirely different when it comes to interpretation of God -- that is why Christians must enforce doctrinal consistency.

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.

Well, one of the issues we face here is the Jews were just freed from slavery and were trying to carve for themselves a homeland. The Vikings were simply greedy.

Another issue you face is that Christians reject the Old Testament laws absolutely. We follow zero dietary practices and Christ Himself overturned stoning for adulterers:

[bible]John 8:7[/bible]

The Pharisees brought him there solely because they knew he would overturn Jewish law and could then be counted as an apostate (which He was as He came to change the laws and bring forth the New Covenant).

Your accusations have nothing to do with Christians as Christ came to bring a New Covenant to replace the old. The old is irrelevant to all of us.

 

[Mling]

Godless morality is basically something that can go any way it wants to go. It has no real standard.

Communists had no God and they murdered probably over 100 million people in the 20th century (and are still murdering in North Korea, Vietnam and Burma).

Fascism was founded on a lot of fundamentally anti-religious ideas (with the exception of the Croatian Ustashas) and also murdered.

Because there is no God there is no absolute and the morality is up to solely the individual; having no God to exact proper behavior out of the followers and no good message man is free to pursue his own goals and his own will without any hindrance at all.

Sometimes it produced wise people who have done nothing wrong. Sometimes absolute murderers.

Yet in a sense it is not entirely different when it comes to interpretation of God -- that is why Christians must enforce doctrinal consistency.



Well, one of the issues we face here is the Jews were just freed from slavery and were trying to carve for themselves a homeland. The Vikings were simply greedy.

Another issue you face is that Christians reject the Old Testament laws absolutely. We follow zero dietary practices and Christ Himself overturned stoning for adulterers:

[bible]John 8:7[/bible]

The Pharisees brought him there solely because they knew he would overturn Jewish law and could then be counted as an apostate (which He was as He came to change the laws and bring forth the New Covenant).

Your accusations have nothing to do with Christians as Christ came to bring a New Covenant to replace the old. The old is irrelevant to all of us.

I almost agree with the pure logic of the statement, "If there is no God, than there is no moral absolute." Let's pretend, for the moment, that I do agree with it, because the alternatives are irrelevant. Like I said earlier, the existence of a god allows for a third-party perspective to all human affair. But, paraphrasing quatona, what's it matter? People interpret their god's (or gods') message in whatever way makes sense, or feels right, to them. Child rapist and murders have used the Bible to support their actions, some as an excuse, some out of sincere belief that God (the Christian God) ordered them to beat children to within inches of their lives.
In terms of morality, whether this presumably-objective third party exists and is providing absolute judgments is an academic concern. That is, it is interesting to think about, but it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way: people who believe in God and claim to be led by God behave no more or less morally than those who claim to be led by their own reason or intrinsic conscience.

So, you say that Godless morality is something that goes anyway it wants to, and has no real standard. In the strictest sense, barring any other sources of absolute morality, that may be true. So, then the question becomes, which way would it want to go, and what would it create as a standard?
This is the crux of what I am saying: a person raised to be empathetic--that, above anything else--will not want to go in any way that will harm others. That becomes the standard.

And, as people manipulate both god and reason to suit their own feelings--disregarding any view of divinity and any logic that does not resonate with them--this is actually the only standard, and the only way that morality goes.

There, I think I managed to make sense this time.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Well, one of the issues we face here is the Jews were just freed from slavery and were trying to carve for themselves a homeland. The Vikings were simply greedy.

By using the context to justify the act, are you not using a system of relative morality?

Another issue you face is that Christians reject the Old Testament laws absolutely. We follow zero dietary practices and Christ Himself overturned stoning for adulterers:

If the existance of a god assures an absolute system of morality, why did what was previously just become unjust all of a sudden? If absolue morality exists, it should be the same regardless of time and place.

 

[tcampen]

Because reason alone is insufficient to make moral judgements. You need to determine a fundamental axiomatic basis which all morality is to be based on at first. Only then can you use reason to deduce what morals work best towards achieving that basis.

True, but using a supernatural diety as that fundamental basis is inherently problematic. It is impossible to rationally determine the morals of such a being, as evidneced by the countless examples of contrary opinionso of such by those relying on the exact same diety. So, if we look at general concepts such as safety, happiness, love, freedom and health as intuitively desirable and basic needs of humanity, along with the innate desire to avoid unecessary harm, we can understand what kind of society we all prefer to live in. Morality is supposed to promote that kind of society.

By any objective scale, one cannot say people who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. And if those who do not believe in god can still behave just a morally as their theist counterparts, then clearly God is not a prerequisit for determining morality. Only by focusing on those fundamental values we all share regardless of our religious beliefs can we have any universal sense of morality, and move forward in a free society.

 

[quatona]

All I get from this argument is:
I just need to claim that my moral stances come from an objecitve source for to be absolved from the reproach that I do what I want.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Because reason alone is insufficient to make moral judgements. You need to determine a fundamental axiomatic basis which all morality is to be based on at first. Only then can you use reason to deduce what morals work best towards achieving that basis.

That may be so but none of that presupposes a diety.

 

[an7222]

The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die&#8221, and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).
The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.
By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it’s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

 

[ngpty]

Because reason alone is insufficient to make moral judgements. You need to determine a fundamental axiomatic basis which all morality is to be based on at first. Only then can you use reason to deduce what morals work best towards achieving that basis.

The only thought-system that is rigorously axiomatizable is mathematics. Human moral standards are known to be inconsistent and are therefore not axiomatizable in any rigorous sense. The best we can do is codify the spectrum of moral codes and call the subset of principles they have in common "axioms", but those "axioms" say more about our shared background as social primates than they do about abstract moral principles.

 

[Verv]

I almost agree with the pure logic of the statement, "If there is no God, than there is no moral absolute." Let's pretend, for the moment, that I do agree with it, because the alternatives are irrelevant. Like I said earlier, the existence of a god allows for a third-party perspective to all human affair. But, paraphrasing quatona, what's it matter? People interpret their god's (or gods') message in whatever way makes sense, or feels right, to them. Child rapist and murders have used the Bible to support their actions, some as an excuse, some out of sincere belief that God (the Christian God) ordered them to beat children to within inches of their lives.

That is why a universal church was essentially necessary though it failed miserably.

Rather, as Christians we must entirely embrace the Gospel and now that we are actually literate it is possible. Previously, we could be lied to and coerced into ill behavior but there has not been any of these such Christian immoral acts in a long time because we've come a far way.

In short, I argue that in the 21st century God empowers people with morality if they follow Christian principles as they are now literate and can know their beliefs and not be dependent on another.

So what do you think of this one?

So, you say that Godless morality is something that goes anyway it wants to, and has no real standard. In the strictest sense, barring any other sources of absolute morality, that may be true. So, then the question becomes, which way would it want to go, and what would it create as a standard?
This is the crux of what I am saying: a person raised to be empathetic--that, above anything else--will not want to go in any way that will harm others. That becomes the standard.

I say that you are right and that most Godless people have a decent moral compass. However, in some circumstances angry young men (and women) can justify extreme actions which is really wrong. It would be better for us to have a pillar to lean on.

And honestly, this pillar can also be found in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and even in Communism to an extent (though I certainly disagree with it, they do have their own sense of morality). There are many sources and I cannot deny that.

I would even say that humanism and other secular forms offer up good ethical systems to an extent.

However, I follow Christian ethics and morality, period, and I believe that these are always the most just and right principles that set the guidelines well.

I also believe that Jesus Christ is the path to Heaven.

There, I think I managed to make sense this time.

Haha, you do, don't worry.

By using the context to justify the act, are you not using a system of relative morality?

Not necessarily. More like the circumstances are different and thus there are going to be differences.

If the existance of a god assures an absolute system of morality, why did what was previously just become unjust all of a sudden? If absolue morality exists, it should be the same regardless of time and place.

It is, but you have named two different circumstances. A people fighting for survival operate under a different pretense than a people who are acting out of greed.

True, but using a supernatural diety as that fundamental basis is inherently problematic. It is impossible to rationally determine the morals of such a being, as evidneced by the countless examples of contrary opinionso of such by those relying on the exact same diety. So, if we look at general concepts such as safety, happiness, love, freedom and health as intuitively desirable and basic needs of humanity, along with the innate desire to avoid unecessary harm, we can understand what kind of society we all prefer to live in. Morality is supposed to promote that kind of society.

This goes back to literacy and knowledge of the follower of the religion; in the 21st century we will do much better.

 

[Mling]

That is why a universal church was essentially necessary though it failed miserably.

Rather, as Christians we must entirely embrace the Gospel and now that we are actually literate it is possible. Previously, we could be lied to and coerced into ill behavior but there has not been any of these such Christian immoral acts in a long time because we've come a far way.

In short, I argue that in the 21st century God empowers people with morality if they follow Christian principles as they are now literate and can know their beliefs and not be dependent on another.

So what do you think of this one?

It is true that the average person has more access to the scripture of any religion now than they did in the past. However, regardless of one's exposure to ideas, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. The illiterate were manipulated then, and all are manipulated now. The difference is that, now, people are manipulated in little groups, instead of big ones. So, now, we have 900 people committing suicide, 20 committing human, 300 dancing naked under the full moon and playing guitars at people...whatever. We don't see all of Europe burning witches. I see this as an improvement, but only in that there are fewer victims if you limit the mob mentality. With everybody screwing up in different ways, society is better able to balance itself, rather than swinging to an extreme as one, barely contested, unit.

But we're still all screwing up.

I say that you are right and that most Godless people have a decent moral compass. However, in some circumstances angry young men (and women) can justify extreme actions which is really wrong.

It would be better for us to have a pillar to lean on.

And honestly, this pillar can also be found in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and even in Communism to an extent (though I certainly disagree with it, they do have their own sense of morality). There are many sources and I cannot deny that.

I would even say that humanism and other secular forms offer up good ethical systems to an extent.

However, I follow Christian ethics and morality, period, and I believe that these are always the most just and right principles that set the guidelines well.

But people don't lean themselves over to meet the pillar. The pull the pillar over to them and use it prop themselves up where they are.

And, which Christian ethics? People bash Fred Phelps, but he follows the same style of prophesy as Jonah and other prophets did. Christ said to turn the other cheek. He also said to sell your clothing, if necessary, in order to buy weapons. Mother Theresa was a Christian, and so was Albert Fish--one of the most notorious serial killers in American history. Many Christians cling to Ghandi, others followed Hitler like eager puppies.

Which ethics do you follow and call Christian? By what method do you decide that others are not? Are yours the only Christian ethics? Which other ethics, also considered Christian, do you ignore?

Many of these ethical systems which you undoubtedly consider wrong are supported by both logic and the Bible. How do you decide which to follow, and which to disregard?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

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

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.

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

and in many monotheistic cultures they cut off parts of babies genitals to make their god happy. And some even would cut off even more just to make kids sing better.