Needing justification for morality

[Syd the Human]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

 

[variant]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

It's odd when theists think atheists have morals without having reasons for having morals.

As if morality is somehow irrational instead of rational.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about the fact that humans are social animals, and going around alienating people is a great way to get killed or exiled? You don't play nice, you pay the price. Additionally, you can have reasons besides the promise of eternal bliss or punishment to be a good person, but even if we didn't isn't it commendable to be a good person without extrinsic motivations as opposed to being promised a reward in return?

 

[juvenissun]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

True morality is NOT up to any justification (no need).
Most atheists do not know that. That is why they are atheists. They need to justify everything they do. (but they can NEVER be consistent in doing that)

 

[PsychoSarah]

True morality is NOT up to any justification (no need).
Most atheists do not know that. That is why they are atheists. They need to justify everything they do. (but they can NEVER be consistent in doing that)

Nope, I do stuff without much of a conscious reason all the time. Usually doesn't end so great.

 

[Paradoxum]

If atheists are being moral without reason, then I suppose they would fear that we might suddenly realise this, and turn bad.

True morality is NOT up to any justification (no need).

If there's no justification then there's no 'true morality', only opinion.

Most atheists do not know that. That is why they are atheists. They need to justify everything they do. (but they can NEVER be consistent in doing that)

People are atheist because they don't see a good reason to believe in God. You seem to be admitting that your beliefs are a bunch of made up rubbish, if you reject justification for them.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

Something I read online recently:

When I was young I used to pray to God for a bicycle. Then when I got older I realized God doesn't work that way so instead, I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.

I don't know why that came to mind when I read the OP but... Yeah. Theists are just as likely to do bad, they just get a "Get out of Hell free" card. They call it, Jesus.

 

[juvenissun]

If atheists are being moral without reason, then I suppose they would fear that we might suddenly realise this, and turn bad.


If there's no justification then there's no 'true morality', only opinion.


People are atheist because they don't see a good reason to believe in God. You seem to be admitting that your beliefs are a bunch of made up rubbish, if you reject justification for them.

You are way off the point. I do not know what to reply.
The error started from the first sentence: REASON is a must thing to have in the moral code of atheism.
The consequence: atheism ended with NO effective moral code, because the reason becomes reasons and they become inconsistent on any issue at all the time.

 

[juvenissun]

Something I read online recently:

When I was young I used to pray to God for a bicycle. Then when I got older I realized God doesn't work that way so instead, I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.

I don't know why that came to mind when I read the OP but... Yeah. Theists are just as likely to do bad, they just get a "Get out of Hell free" card. They call it, Jesus.

So you get at least one moral code for theists: thou shalt not steal. This code is not arguable (no reasoning).

This code does not always apply among atheists. And I would say, in most cases, it does not apply.

 

[quatona]

You are way off the point. I do not know what to reply.
The error started from the first sentence: REASON is a must thing to have in the moral code of atheism.

Well, it isn´t.
But let´s pretend it were, for the sake of the argument.
Now, what is the must thing to have in the moral code of theism? OBEDIENCE?

The consequence: atheism ended with NO effective moral code, because the reason becomes reasons and they become inconsistent on any issue at all the time.

Theism obviously didn´t end with an effective moral code, either - possibly because god became gods, and - first of all - none of them have been demonstrated to exist.

 

[Received]

Yeah, theism and morality for the vast majority is just the divine command theory locked up in cultural precepts.

 

[Paradoxum]

You are way off the point. I do not know what to reply.
The error started from the first sentence: REASON is a must thing to have in the moral code of atheism.
The consequence: atheism ended with NO effective moral code, because the reason becomes reasons and they become inconsistent on any issue at all the time.

You're explanation is confusing... I don't understand what you're saying.

You don't think reason can give you morality?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Morals are sort of the rules of a 'group'.

Sarah (the Psycho One) in her posting implies that morals are derived from social 'opinion'; that is, they are the rules a society imposes on members to 'get along'. That is a reasonable way of looking at this, but has no permanence. For instance, 'society' around the world agreed that slavery was okay - as long as it was happening to someone else. Then some pack of radicals starting talking about the 'worth of the individual' and finally got it outlawed. (Except in places where those 'radicals' aren't allowed.)

The point is, as long as the ordaining body of the moral code is society, the moral code is flexible and shifts with the tide of public opinion. We see that right now in the United States - probably other places as well, but I don't get around that much.

Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date?

I cannot speak for all 'theists' (as you cannot speak for all 'agnostics') but I don't think atheist moral changes are 'random' in the sense of 'sudden and without warning'.

Take a look at the popular view (in the U.S.) of pregnancy out of wedlock: Sixty years ago, it was unthinkable. Now, it's more or less the way things happen. That change of view is largely among the non-Christian community. Sixty years ago it was more than an issue of 'improper sexual conduct', it was also a matter of economics and the effect on the culture. Now, it isn't a big deal.

This is a shift in moral outlook by people who are functionally atheist or agnostic. The hardcore Christian believers still believe it to be wrong and should be avoided. My point is, that was a shift in moral view, but not sudden or without warning. (Was it random?)

Allow me a seeming digression. How does a modern society know a certain action is 'against the law'? One remembers the oft-coined phrase, "There ought to be a law!"

Something is 'against the law' if and only if there is a statutory code section defining that action as a crime. (Again, this is in the U.S.; I know of some dictatorial states where a 'crime' is anything the dictator deems a crime.) One has to have a 'standard' against which to measure. For the U.S. Federal Government, the standard is the "United States Code" (USC) which has the 'laws' listed. Each state has it's own list of penal code, business code, health code and so forth.

So how does one know if something is 'moral'? By checking against a code, it seems. When young, one asks a parent about such decisions. One trusts a parent will know. (This of course is a general statement; I am aware some parents do NOT know right from wrong, or do not care. I'm not trying to offend any one from such a situation.)

The moral code of the Creator God has existed long prior to the establishment of Christianity. It is recorded in the Bible, although not as clearly as some seem to demand. Oddly enough, it is in fact the moral code of the founder of Christianity.

So. Yes, atheists can be and are 'moral' persons. Most of the atheists I know are honest, truthful and well mannered. (There are a couple who are untrustworthy narcissists, but I've met Christians of the same ilk...) The problem is, how long will that current standard of morality exist? In the past three hundred years, humanity has changed from 'slavery is okay' to 'slavery is wrong'. When will it change back?

 

[Syd the Human]

Morals are sort of the rules of a 'group'.

Sarah (the Psycho One) in her posting implies that morals are derived from social 'opinion'; that is, they are the rules a society imposes on members to 'get along'. That is a reasonable way of looking at this, but has no permanence. For instance, 'society' around the world agreed that slavery was okay - as long as it was happening to someone else. Then some pack of radicals starting talking about the 'worth of the individual' and finally got it outlawed. (Except in places where those 'radicals' aren't allowed.)

The point is, as long as the ordaining body of the moral code is society, the moral code is flexible and shifts with the tide of public opinion. We see that right now in the United States - probably other places as well, but I don't get around that much.
I cannot speak for all 'theists' (as you cannot speak for all 'agnostics') but I don't think atheist moral changes are 'random' in the sense of 'sudden and without warning'.

Take a look at the popular view (in the U.S.) of pregnancy out of wedlock: Sixty years ago, it was unthinkable. Now, it's more or less the way things happen. That change of view is largely among the non-Christian community. Sixty years ago it was more than an issue of 'improper sexual conduct', it was also a matter of economics and the effect on the culture. Now, it isn't a big deal.

This is a shift in moral outlook by people who are functionally atheist or agnostic. The hardcore Christian believers still believe it to be wrong and should be avoided. My point is, that was a shift in moral view, but not sudden or without warning. (Was it random?)

Allow me a seeming digression. How does a modern society know a certain action is 'against the law'? One remembers the oft-coined phrase, "There ought to be a law!"

Something is 'against the law' if and only if there is a statutory code section defining that action as a crime. (Again, this is in the U.S.; I know of some dictatorial states where a 'crime' is anything the dictator deems a crime.) One has to have a 'standard' against which to measure. For the U.S. Federal Government, the standard is the "United States Code" (USC) which has the 'laws' listed. Each state has it's own list of penal code, business code, health code and so forth.

So how does one know if something is 'moral'? By checking against a code, it seems. When young, one asks a parent about such decisions. One trusts a parent will know. (This of course is a general statement; I am aware some parents do NOT know right from wrong, or do not care. I'm not trying to offend any one from such a situation.)

The moral code of the Creator God has existed long prior to the establishment of Christianity. It is recorded in the Bible, although not as clearly as some seem to demand. Oddly enough, it is in fact the moral code of the founder of Christianity.

So. Yes, atheists can be and are 'moral' persons. Most of the atheists I know are honest, truthful and well mannered. (There are a couple who are untrustworthy narcissists, but I've met Christians of the same ilk...) The problem is, how long will that current standard of morality exist? In the past three hundred years, humanity has changed from 'slavery is okay' to 'slavery is wrong'. When will it change back?

I doubt that having children out of wedlock was "unthinkable" or uncommon. But I don't have the statistics so I can't really challenge that statement. But I think I can see how morals have changed. Morality is about not hurting other people, if it doesn't hurt someone else then it's not immoral. That's why (why I think why) people don't consider having a child out of wedlock a bad thing, is having a child really that harmful to society or to other people? And if it is, should we then regulate the number of children? I'm not saying you're saying that, just so you know.

 

[juvenissun]

You're explanation is confusing... I don't understand what you're saying.

You don't think reason can give you morality?

Absolutely not.

I may not agree with your reasoning.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, it isn´t.
But let´s pretend it were, for the sake of the argument.
Now, what is the must thing to have in the moral code of theism? OBEDIENCE?

Theism obviously didn´t end with an effective moral code, either - possibly because god became gods, and - first of all - none of them have been demonstrated to exist.

A God. He is the only one who can give any meaningful moral codes. You do not have to obey. But the codes are there to stay.

If you do not think God exists, then you do not have any true moral code. Of course, you may have your own codes. But do not expect others to agree with you.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Anyone that adheres to a moral code that does not first and above all satisfy their needs to do as they please is in essence making a conscious choice to subsume their own wishes to the wishes of something or being other than themselves. If one calls that something God or the greater good or the brotherhood of man or whatever one has decided is ultimately more important than themselves we all think is both superior to ourself and has truth that we ourselves, by ourselves, do not possess in equal measure. The feeling, beleif , emotional attachment , whatever you call it that causes theists to attempt to adhere to a moral code is the one that causes atheists to do the same. Rationality plays very little role in morality as when we speak of morality we do not speak of what is motre advantageous or more effective or better for species survival etc. but of what is right and wrtong : good and evil. We judge the moral value of the actions of humans rather than some judgement about the relative of gain or loss from that action.

 

[JohnLocke]

With the whole atheist morality debate I heard a consistent idea from theists is that atheists do have morals, just no reason to adhere to them. But, they do admit that atheists have morals, so why is there any need for justification? Do theists think that atheists will suddenly abandon their morals randomly at some later date? I'm not saying that there is no justification, but why does it matter anyway? If a theist had no justification, would their actions change?

I suppose it would depend on the theist. Many of my Jewish friends have incorporated the moral strictures of their faith into their identities as persons. I wish I could remember exactly how my friend Benjamin put it, but when asked why he observed Sabbath and other "Old Testament" laws, he said "because it is to be done." For Benjamin, there was no quid pro quo for moral behavior, he did not believe that he was going to be "saved" or "rewarded in the Paradise hereafter."

I'm not sure if one would consider Benjamin's morality as having a justification or not; but anyone who knew him would know him to be a very honorable man.

This reminds me of Camus and Sartre and other existentialists. If a person were to look at the universe and find benign indifference and developed a moral system to live by just to conclude that existential crisis, would that morality be unjustified?

I think codes of morality matter to the extent that the person is committed to it, whether that commitment is arbitrary, justified, or whatever.

 

[KCfromNC]

Morals are sort of the rules of a 'group'.

Sarah (the Psycho One) in her posting implies that morals are derived from social 'opinion'; that is, they are the rules a society imposes on members to 'get along'. That is a reasonable way of looking at this, but has no permanence. For instance, 'society' around the world agreed that slavery was okay - as long as it was happening to someone else. Then some pack of radicals starting talking about the 'worth of the individual' and finally got it outlawed. (Except in places where those 'radicals' aren't allowed.)

The point is, as long as the ordaining body of the moral code is society, the moral code is flexible and shifts with the tide of public opinion. We see that right now in the United States - probably other places as well, but I don't get around that much.

Yep, all good evidence that there's no such thing as a fixed absolute moral code.

Take a look at the popular view (in the U.S.) of pregnancy out of wedlock: Sixty years ago, it was unthinkable. Now, it's more or less the way things happen. That change of view is largely among the non-Christian community.

Weird. The US is like 80% Christian. How can this change be significant and and simultaneously be limited to non-Christians?

So how does one know if something is 'moral'? By checking against a code, it seems.

Some people rely on authority to dictate moral decisions, but that's a pretty low level of moral development.

The problem is, how long will that current standard of morality exist? In the past three hundred years, humanity has changed from 'slavery is okay' to 'slavery is wrong'.

Are you implying that Christianity has an objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of slavery that has never changed in the history of the religion?

 

[Paradoxum]

Absolutely not.

I may not agree with your reasoning.

Reason can absolutely not give you morality?

Anyone that adheres to a moral code that does not first and above all satisfy their needs to do as they please is in essence making a conscious choice to subsume their own wishes to the wishes of something or being other than themselves. If one calls that something God or the greater good or the brotherhood of man or whatever one has decided is ultimately more important than themselves we all think is both superior to ourself and has truth that we ourselves, by ourselves, do not possess in equal measure.

I think I more or less agree, though perhaps not with all of the wording.

The feeling, beleif , emotional attachment , whatever you call it that causes theists to attempt to adhere to a moral code is the one that causes atheists to do the same.

I'd agree that the reason we care about being moral might be similar. In some cases it might not be similar though.

Rationality plays very little role in morality as when we speak of morality we do not speak of what is motre advantageous or more effective or better for species survival etc. but of what is right and wrtong : good and evil.

This isn't an argument. Morality is (more or less) by definition about right and wrong, good or bad. So all you are saying is that morality isn't rational, because morality is morality.

You just seem to assume that right and wrong can't be rational.

In my opinion, a universal good and bad can be found by equally considering the individual good and bad of people. eg: Equally consider the victim and murderers wishes (the victims wish to live being more important, because it's their body).

We judge the moral value of the actions of humans rather than some judgement about the relative of gain or loss from that action.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, and I'm not totally sure I understand the distinction you're making.