How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

[grasping the after wind]

As an atheist I define what I believe to be good by using morality.
What are morality? I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful for me and my neighbor is good, and what is harmful to me and my neighbor is bad.

IMO if you are unable to understand the above mentioned traits on your own, but must receive instructions from a perceived authority on how to be moral, you aren't being moral; you're being obedient.
Any person who must receive instructions from God in order to be moral, is nothing more than an immoral person who is good at following instructions. I'm better than that; I think all of us are even though some of us may not realize it.

How about what is helpful to me and harmful to my neighbor? Morally good or morally bad? and why?

 

[Caliban]

How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

Romans 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Probably the same way most other humans do; by looking around and acting in a manner that promotes social cohesion and well-being. No god necessary in that equation.

 

[Ken-1122]

How about what is helpful to me and harmful to my neighbor? Morally good or morally bad? and why?

To be judged on a case by case basis. Can you give an example?

 

[grasping the after wind]

To be judged on a case by case basis. Can you give an example?

I don't see why you can't make the same kind of general statement as you have in those other circumstances as you say that morality is so easy to discern that if one looks to a moral authority they are actually immoral somehow.

If you need examples of helping oneself and harming another How about these. I also threw in some helping others and harming oneself to get a feeling for how you would edecide which is immoral and which is morally upright.

Taxing my neighbor to provide things for me.
Shoplifting
Killing one's spouse to collect the insurance money.
Hit and run.
Giving money to a charity organization .
Giving someone your only food because they are hungry too.
Making a good salary working for a non profit that one knows is is fraudulent

I would like to know what the process is that you use to decide which is good and which is bad in these situations.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't see why you can't make the same kind of general statement as you have in those other circumstances as you say that morality is so easy to discern that if one looks to a moral authority they are actually immoral somehow.

It sounds like you’re confusing me with the guy who says morality is objective. I’ve always maintained morality to be subjective. That means each moral case is determined on a case by case basis because extenuating circumstances, and personal opinions and beliefs have to be taken into consideration.

If you need examples of helping oneself and harming another How about these. I also threw in some helping others and harming oneself to get a feeling for how you would edecide which is immoral and which is morally upright.

Taxing my neighbor to provide things for me.

If my neighbor is the only one being taxed, and I am the only one benefiting from his tax, I would consider that wrong.

Shoplifting
Killing one's spouse to collect the insurance money.
Hit and run.

all bad

Giving money to a charity organization .
Giving someone your only food because they are hungry too.

Giving voluntarily is good.

Making a good salary working for a non profit that one knows is is fraudulent

Depends on the fraud, and how much good the non profit is doing

I would like to know what the process is that you use to decide which is good and which is bad in these situations.

I base this on what sounds fair to me, however extenuating circumstances could result in me judging each of those cases differently.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If my neighbor is the only one being taxed, and I am the only one benefiting from his tax, I would consider that wrong.

Why?

 

[grasping the after wind]

all bad

Why?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Giving voluntarily is good.

Why?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Depends on the fraud, and how much good the non profit is doing

Then tell me at what level of fraud and at what level of good would you deide i it was a abd thing or a good thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I base this on what sounds fair to me, however extenuating circumstances could result in me judging each of those cases differently.

What is your personal standard for determining fairness?

 

[grasping the after wind]

It sounds like you’re confusing me with the guy who says morality is objective. I’ve always maintained morality to be subjective. That means each moral case is determined on a case by case basis because extenuating circumstances, and personal opinions and beliefs have to be taken into consideration.

I made no such assumption. BTW I also believe that morality is subjective. Which does not actually mean that each moral case is determined on a case by case basis. That would be considering morality to be relative as well as subjective. Being subjective simply means that morality is not based upon objective fact but upon subjective judgement. I believe that morality is subjective but not relative. For me, A thing is good or it is bad based upon whether it conforms to my subjective moral code not because I am considering what I might think about a situation today that I might not agree with tomorrow. I have a subjective standard with which I can determine whether a thing is good bad or indifferent morally speaking. The problem with making morality relative is that it makes it much easier to act malevolently toward others as one can always rationalize how one had to act that way in order to serve some ephemeral greater good therefore what might seem to others as bad was actually morally upright. Rationalization is one of the morally bankrupt actions covered by my subjective moral code.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why?

At the basic level, I find it unfair to forceable take something earned by one man, and give it someone else.

Why?

I would not want that to happen to me.

Why?

Because if I were in need and someone chose to help me, I would like that.

Then tell me at what level of fraud and at what level of good would you deide i it was a abd thing or a good thing.

If I consider the non profit is doing more harm than good, it is bad regardless of my salary.

What is your personal standard for determining fairness?

It’s based on what sounds fair to me.

I made no such assumption. BTW I also believe that morality is subjective. Which does not actually mean that each moral case is determined on a case by case basis. That would be considering morality to be relative as well as subjective. Being subjective simply means that morality is not based upon objective fact but upon subjective judgement. I believe that morality is subjective but not relative. For me, A thing is good or it is bad based upon whether it conforms to my subjective moral code not because I am considering what I might think about a situation today that I might not agree with tomorrow. I have a subjective standard with which I can determine whether a thing is good bad or indifferent morally speaking. The problem with making morality relative is that it makes it much easier to act malevolently toward others as one can always rationalize how one had to act that way in order to serve some ephemeral greater good therefore what might seem to others as bad was actually morally upright. Rationalization is one of the morally bankrupt actions covered by my subjective moral code.

When I said “case by case basis” I meant there are scenarios when what is helpful for me and harmful to my neighbor is moral, and other scenarios when it is immoral. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Thomas White]

How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

Romans 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

"Do no harm" pretty much sums it up. Most normal people who have not been desensitized feel uncomfortable with they cause harm to another, so they have a few formidable years to determine right and wrong.

 

[Caliban]

You'll find that they have many different definitions, and are often opposed to each other about them.

That reminds me of how I used to think about other Christian denominations when I was a believer. I guess no one is immune to this problem. It must have something to do with being human.

 

[grasping the after wind]

At the basic level, I find it unfair to forceable take something earned by one man, and give it someone else.

I would not want that to happen to me.

Because if I were in need and someone chose to help me, I would like that.

If I consider the non profit is doing more harm than good, it is bad regardless of my salary.

It’s based on what sounds fair to me.

When I said “case by case basis” I meant there are scenarios when what is helpful for me and harmful to my neighbor is moral, and other scenarios when it is immoral. Does this make sense to you?

No it actually doesn't make sense to me. It is too complicated a process and it assumes one will be honest with oneself. An assumption that seems to me to have been proven inaccurate over and over again in human interaction throughout history. Self deception being a commonly shared trait among human beings. . I don't consider morality to be a matter of weighing things which will inevitably lead to ever increasing numbers of rationalization as we tend to want to see ourselves as "good" no matter what we do. I prefer having a moral code in which I can judge my behavior based upon certain standards rather than my opinion of how much or little I am honest with myself about how much harm I am actually doing. I may well end up taking the same action as one that has taken you stance on morality but I can be more assured that I won't be stacking the deck in my own favor because it is the behavior and not the consequences that decide for me whether I have done good or evil.

 

[Tayla]

How does one who does not believe in God define what is good?

Human nature is such that we discern good and bad; and we experience happiness, joy, pleasure, and pain. This is all that is necessary to define a system of morality and ethics.

 

[Ken-1122]

No it actually doesn't make sense to me. It is too complicated a process and it assumes one will be honest with oneself.

True. The question was how does one who doesn't believe in God determine what is moral. If you have no interest in being honest; not even with yourself, you have no interest in being moral. So the way the question is phrased, it assumes the person wants to be moral, and intends to be honest with himself

An assumption that seems to me to have been proven inaccurate over and over again in human interaction throughout history. Self deception being a commonly shared trait among human beings. . I don't consider morality to be a matter of weighing things which will inevitably lead to ever increasing numbers of rationalization as we tend to want to see ourselves as "good" no matter what we do. I prefer having a moral code in which I can judge my behavior based upon certain standards rather than my opinion of how much or little I am honest with myself about how much harm I am actually doing.

If you refuse to be honest with yourself, why would you be honest with a moral code provided by someone else? And how do you know this someone else who provided the moral code is honest? If you have relinquished yourself as a moral agent, how do you know this person providing you with a moral code is fair or even moral?

I may well end up taking the same action as one that has taken you stance on morality but I can be more assured that I won't be stacking the deck in my own favor because it is the behavior and not the consequences that decide for me whether I have done good or evil.

Perhaps you will be stacking the deck in the favor of the one who wrote your moral code. Again; how do you know he is moral? Is it a case of might makes right?

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

After reading many of the posts, I believe that the non-believers have answered the question regarding how goodness is defined in the absence of God. Their answers tend to define goodness in terms of the moral implications of our actions, individually or collectively, in relation to others. Good is that which benefits, or minimizes harm to others, and bad is the opposite.

While I do not technically disagree with this description of how we can measure the goodness or badness of our actions in this way, the reason Christians seem to push back is because they are wanting something more. Basically, this definition of goodness seems to suggest that all it is is an adherence to a subjective goal. Why is X good? because it furthers the subjective goal of human survival and/or flourishing, and though the goal is something we can all agree with, the christian wants the acknowledgement that in the absence of a divine authority, what is it that allows us to ground our notion that humans are valuable apart from our subjective desires? I guess what I am trying to say is, is such a thing good because we have made it so, or were we made for such a thing as good?

 

[Ken-1122]

After reading many of the posts, I believe that the non-believers have answered the question regarding how goodness is defined in the absence of God. Their answers tend to define goodness in terms of the moral implications of our actions, individually or collectively, in relation to others. Good is that which benefits, or minimizes harm to others, and bad is the opposite.

While I do not technically disagree with this description of how we can measure the goodness or badness of our actions in this way, the reason Christians seem to push back is because they are wanting something more. Basically, this definition of goodness seems to suggest that all it is is an adherence to a subjective goal. Why is X good? because it furthers the subjective goal of human survival and/or flourishing, and though the goal is something we can all agree with, the christian wants the acknowledgement that in the absence of a divine authority, what is it that allows us to ground our notion that humans are valuable apart from our subjective desires? I guess what I am trying to say is, is such a thing good because we have made it so, or were we made for such a thing as good?

I would say such a thing is good because we have determined it to be good.
Concerning what you call “Devine authority”; who determined this authority is Devine? What of those who don’t agree with said authority? What of those who don’t consider it Devine? Is there anything that might compel someone to respect it over any other proclaimed authority?

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

I would say such a thing is good because we have determined it to be good.

In that case, are there any assurances that our determinations won't shift? Is there any way to remove such moral power out of the hands of humanity so that we don't devour ourselves by our own self determination?

Concerning what you call “Devine authority”; who determined this authority is Devine?

When I speak of authority, I am speaking of one who occupies a certain position. In regards to morality, it would have to be a being who owns the rights to such things and is therefore in a position to judge. If morality is a human owned concept, then humans are the moral authority.
When I speak of divinity, for the sake of argument, I am not specifically pointing in any direction, I am simply referring to that which is greater than humanity in such a way that we owe our being to it.

What of those who don’t agree with said authority?

Disagreements may be understandable, but the nature of authority, in the philosophical sense, is that it is the authority, and all disagreements are illegitimate if they stem from a source that is not authoritative.

What of those who don’t consider it Devine?

If something is truly divine, I would assume that whether we agree or disagree, it should not be up to us to decide, because it would then be up to us to judge such things.

Is there anything that might compel someone to respect it over any other proclaimed authority?

This is a good question, although I would object to the term "compel" when it comes to the God I worship. Regardless, I believe that such an authority could foster respect if it acts in a way that is worthy of respect. It is not merely about whether we agree or disagree with it, but whether its position over us is legitimate and its governance over us does not leave us as poor reflections of itself.