Morals Without God

[dawp]

morals are very subjective. What you find immoral I may not have a problem with and vica versa.

 

[Mursilis]

Morality is logical, not spiritual.

We have ethics and morality for purely selfish ends. I do not want to be murdered, or robbed, or raped, therefore I vote to make these things illegal.

Morality stems from the selfish want of self preservation, and extends to the empathy we have for our fellow humans, which, again, is based on the selfish desire to not end up in their situation, so we seek to help those in need based on the fear of if we ourselves are ever in need.

Morality is pure logic and essential for a society to exist.

While that may be true on a societal scale, it says nothing about morality on an individual scale. You have explained why my fellow humans should not steal, rape, and kill, but you haven't explained why I shouldn't.

 

[Mursilis]

This.

Most people have a conscience, and that's where real morality derives from.

The problem with a conscience is, it doesn't exist, and therefore it can be shaped as one wishes. Lying is easily, especially to one's self. I remember reading a case study in college of imprisoned rapists. While nearly all these guys believed rape was a wrong and heinous act, nearly almost all of them also believed they hadn't raped anyone. "She really wanted it - I could tell!" I've never seen any evidence that Hitler slept poorly.

 

[soccerballtux]

Original piece here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/?src=me&ref=general

And an excerpt:


This article seems written specifically for our own SoccerBallTux, who on many occasions (and this is a paraphrase) has reached the conclusion that religion is the only possible source of "universal" meaning. Further, without that meaning being dictated to us by religion, we would all collectively be universal assholes to each other (because then there would be no "moral" or "meaningful" difference between "eating dinner" or "getting a massage" or "exercising" or "killing your neighbor" or "raping and pillaging", all would be equally valid activities). I believe that conclusion is incorrect.

Personally, I think the article, while being an opinion piece, is very spot on in it's argument. Religion is a mere collection of rules/guidelines to live by, written down on paper, and formalized in process. We get our sense of right and wrong from a combination of our built-in conscience (from birth), as well as by observation and process refinement over the years (from society).

Thoughts?

Why do we need a built in conscience? What is the "need" that drove evolution to evolve that conscience? The need to survive? Why does surviving matter?

We no doubt exhibit morality apart from mental ascent to the idea of "God", I will not argue that. But just because we do, does that necessarily mean we have any rational basis for that morality which we follow?

 

[soccerballtux]

I think people are choosing to overlook the obvious. There is no objective morality.

In some societies it was perfectly acceptable to eat people.

Slavery was a matter of economics and morality wasn't something even considered until there was an effective means replacing human labor.

It is honorable to murder in certain contexts.

The theist may say that God gives reality to morals, but in that case it's a code of ethics which God would insist we obey. They aren't "real".

Likewise an atheistic view would be the same, but substituting societal consensus for God.

Morals are still a construct.

Everyone knows this.

I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.

Which of these two beliefs providers a better support on which to base one's assertion that people should be moral? A self-validating all powerful being (supreme truth--"God is" aka how God said "I AM"), or the fluctuating whims of our society (3rd Reich anyone?)?

 

[nonlnear]

Why do we need a built in conscience? What is the "need" that drove evolution to evolve that conscience? The need to survive? Why does surviving matter?

The "need" is not a priori, it's anthropic. Species which survive will tend to look like they have what it takes to survive, and will tend to act like surviving matters.

We no doubt exhibit morality apart from mental ascent to the idea of "God", I will not argue that. But just because we do, does that necessarily mean we have any rational basis for that morality which we follow?

Hmm... "ascent" is a rather interesting turn of phrase. The perfect typo, as it were!

You are correct that those who claim to have a self-proving rational construction of their beliefs are deluded. However those who are honest about their choice of axioms (and what a choice of axioms entails) can pull off just about any construction they want. It always boils down to the aesthetic choice of axioms though, which makes some uncomfortable - namely those who like to smugly claim that their belief system is "totally rational" (by which they often incorrectly mean self validating) or some other such ballyhoo.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If you need rules, laws, or religion to make up for your own lack of an inner moral compass, congratulations, you're a psychopath.

Psychopaths have an internal compass, though. It just points to chaotic evil.

 

[skyking]

I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.

Which of these two beliefs providers a better support on which to base one's assertion that people should be moral? A self-validating all powerful being (supreme truth--"God is" aka how God said "I AM"), or the fluctuating whims of our society (3rd Reich anyone?)?

You took it right to Godwin's law on your second post. Congratulations!

 

[her209]

I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.

Which of these two beliefs providers a better support on which to base one's assertion that people should be moral? A self-validating all powerful being (supreme truth--"God is" aka how God said "I AM"), or the fluctuating whims of our society (3rd Reich anyone?)?

3rd Reich as opposed to Sharia Law? That's a hard choice.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Morality either is absolute or it does not exist at all. The very concept of morality is anchored in it being intrinsically absolute. When we speak of right and wrong, it is a reference to something higher that we are all under.

Higher != absolute.

Humans likely have the set of core values we are born with because it is evolutionarily advantageous for our given situation. So, as random mutation and natural selection is a hill climbing algorithm, it comes from a computational system that is higher than us.
This does not make it absolute. Does an ant operate under the same rules as a tiger? No. Their situations are quite different. The behaviors that are advantageous to one won't necessarily work for the other.

 

[totalnoob]

Straight from God's mouth..

Absolute and unchanging morality FTW.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why do we need a built in conscience? What is the "need" that drove evolution to evolve that conscience? The need to survive? Why does surviving matter?

Strictly speaking, we do not. Evolutionarily speaking, we have it because getting along with others is a better survival strategy. Nonlnear's response was a good one.

We no doubt exhibit morality apart from mental ascent to the idea of "God", I will not argue that. But just because we do, does that necessarily mean we have any rational basis for that morality which we follow?

Morality has no rational basis. It is arational, even for theists who have elected to adopt what they believe to be their God's prescribed morality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.

I am an atheist and I do not believe that.

Which of these two beliefs providers a better support on which to base one's assertion that people should be moral? A self-validating all powerful being (supreme truth--"God is" aka how God said "I AM"), or the fluctuating whims of our society (3rd Reich anyone?)?

I wouldn't base my morality on either, but the latter does have the advantage of actually being known to exist. Sucks for you that your God comes up shorter than your Godwin.

"Self-validating." LOL. That's just air-tight, right there...

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem with a conscience is, it doesn't exist, and therefore it can be shaped as one wishes. Lying is easily, especially to one's self. I remember reading a case study in college of imprisoned rapists. While nearly all these guys believed rape was a wrong and heinous act, nearly almost all of them also believed they hadn't raped anyone. "She really wanted it - I could tell!" I've never seen any evidence that Hitler slept poorly.

Hehe, how can you shape what doesn't exist? How can you lie if your aim is to be honest? Rape is about domination of one ego over another, an act of hate. All hate is self hate. How is a self hater, a person who was made to hate himself by enormous psychological and physical pain, going to allow him or herself to now feel that pain when their whole lives are centered around making others pay for it so they don't have to. Why would you think Hitler would allow himself to experience re-experience what was done to him as a child and what he then did to the Jews? Please, the sinner, if you want to use that word, sins because he does not know what agony he is in. Only you or others can know he or she will never experience the ecstasy of real love and the Kingdom of Heaven. Get real. Zombies don't know they are zombies. We wouldn't have the sickness of denial if denial was consciously painful. Think a bit before you make these absurd claims.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The problem with a conscience is, it doesn't exist, and therefore it can be shaped as one wishes. Lying is easily, especially to one's self. I remember reading a case study in college of imprisoned rapists. While nearly all these guys believed rape was a wrong and heinous act, nearly almost all of them also believed they hadn't raped anyone. "She really wanted it - I could tell!"

What idiot chose rape to study? To be convicted of rape it doesn't only take the indulging of selfish desires over the obvious objection of another; it is still rape when there is lack of intent and misinterpretation (neutral or not) explains the gulf; and conviction for rape still occurs when a woman has regrets and convinces herself after the fact that she didn't want it so it must've been rape (or is just batshit insane) and goes forward with charges.

Anyway, proper studies show that white-collar criminals are best at rationalizing their crimes.

 

[Moonbeam]

spittledip: Morality either is absolute or it does not exist at all. The very concept of morality is anchored in it being intrinsically absolute. When we speak of right and wrong, it is a reference to something higher that we are all under. When we hear of a murder, we do not say "that is wrong" b/c it violates some societal code or law- we have the sense that it is violating something that is more than just some standard some government set up.

M: I used to believe this. Then I begin to doubt so I set out to prove the existence of the absolute good. I could not and I died from the pain. My world, as perhaps only somebody like you could imagine, went totally black. I lost everything I loved and held dear, the notion that there is justice and meaning. I discovered that the universe doesn't care a fig what happens to beautiful children and that everything is totally meaningless. There is no absolute truth, no God, and no ultimate meaning and nothing at all that could stop my suffering. I lost all hope that I could ever again be happy.

And I begin to think how I could have ever gotten into such a fix. How did such a happy little child become so miserable? I asked over and over why do I suffer.

Anyway, I had an experience that was rather strange. My thoughts stopped and I woke up from a dream. There I was and at peace. A couple of things seemed to have happened. I knew that my need for meaning was as meaningless as everything else. I had no need for meaning, that was all solved by being which was sort of like turning myself inside out. All that love I had hoped was out there in God was always only actually just inside of me. It is only through my own heart that God will allow his love to pour out. My window opened because I let go of the blinds.

S: In this very forum section (P&N), just about every thread is filled with people claiming that their view represents what is right and opposing views represent what is wrong. And then we have a thread like this that pretends that people are not trying to claim some higher ground in other threads and that morality is just law and order. If right and wrong are as arbitrary as who gets to decide what is right and wrong, then what in the world is there to clamor about?

M: Hehe, nice point. The truth as I see it is neither pig nor pork but beef. There is no arbitrary or absolute out there. There is only love and the kingdom of heaven within. Truth isn't something but a state of being an awareness of ones true nature.

S: Make up your minds. You can't have it both ways. Either power = the determination of what is right and wrong (and thereby trampling everyone who disagrees underfoot violating any real sense of right and wrong) or morality is absolute and comes from a higher power. If you think that cultures and governments (i.e., power) decide what is right and wrong, hopefully you will realize how stupid it is to argue about the topics in P&N. Let's be logically consistent please.

M: It comes neither with power nor some external higher power but from simple organic love, the fact that a human who loves disappears into his lover. God creates me and I create Him. To awaken into being is to be all there is.

First we were everything and we lost it. Then we remembered it in a dream. When we awaken we become everything we dreamed by a return to who we were.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Doubtless the Mayans who were sacrificed felt great honor because by their deaths they preserved the order of the world and fertility of live in general. To die for the good is perfectly logical. What evolves and changes in not our basic morality, but our knowledge of what it means to be good.

This is a very good point in reference to the logic of morality. When one speaks of "the greater good" that most often refers to the society in question. In our society it may be "logical" (I would use the word "preferable") for morals to be beneficial to all men, however what is does that mean? Could one not say that the continuity of culture and society is worth sacrificing (in this case all too literally) lives for it's preservation? Isn't retaining something that one knows and loves worth much? While we may not agree with Mayans, or whatever culture is being examined, it is they who ultimately live in their situation and decide it's worth.

 

[bhanson]

Morality is nothing more than abiding by a social contract. It is absolute although decisions may become sufficiently complex where the correct action is not obvious. The correct decision therefore becomes the one that the majority of people would agree would benefit the most.

In Hobbes' state of nature one is living in a world where you can accomplish nothing more than trying to keep yourself alive. It is full of fear, violence, and inhibits any advancement of the human race.

It is clear that by adding a social contract and giving up a little freedom everyone can benefit. Humanitarianism is simply the actions that will increase the greatest amount of overall good. The social contract probably started off as non-verbal, silent agreements to help each other with mutual benefit. Eventually through evolution as language became more developed these rules were able to be written down.

An action that is moral is something that will help humanity, while something immoral will harm it. Unfortunately people through an unlimited number of reasons (SES, defective genes, etc.) may be more or less moral. In a developing society it would be easy for a less moral (selfish) person to introduce corruption into the (apparent) social contract.

A common opposing view is that the social contract was formed out of the self-interest of everyone, so why is being selfish immoral? That is how it was originally formed, but it is clear from the actions of people today that one can exist without being selfish. People trade their lives everyday to save the lives of others where in the original situation this would never happen.

Religion is nothing more than an early explanation for the unknown. Science has only recently begun to discover the tip of the iceberg of describing our physical world. In a less developed society, divine command theory is significantly easier to grasp (or rather create) than jumping directly to all matter is nothing more than tons of atoms moving around at incredible speeds.

If I were to guess, I bet most religion also originated out of a selfish interest to leverage power over others. Once immediately out of a state of nature it still leaves tons of unexplained phenomenon. If a person were to come forward with a testament of something and were able to convince everyone else that it was true (for lack of a better, scientific explanation), it would give them an advantage in society.

Eventually as science is developed I think religion is going to fade into nothing more than an early explanation for the previously unexplainable.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a very good point in reference to the logic of morality. When one speaks of "the greater good" that most often refers to the society in question. In our society it may be "logical" (I would use the word "preferable") for morals to be beneficial to all men, however what is does that mean? Could one not say that the continuity of culture and society is worth sacrificing (in this case all too literally) lives for it's preservation? Isn't retaining something that one knows and loves worth much? While we may not agree with Mayans, or whatever culture is being examined, it is they who ultimately live in their situation and decide it's worth.

(If I understand what you are saying and I am not sure that I do

Isn't this where we are and will always be, defending what we think right now is right? It seems that it is only in the evolution of understanding that morality can change. Therefore, it seems to me that what matters is not the transmission of what the think is right today, but the capacity to seek and find truth. When understanding grows so does our morality. We can become more or less moral or we can stay the same. All will depend on whether we approach or move away from real understanding. As always the question is, 'What is real?'. In that respect, I think we live in the Dark Ages. Real understanding is drowning in a sea of noise.

 

[daishi5]

This.

If you need rules to decide not to slaughter your fellow man or take someone else's belongings... you have serious mental issues. Religion / Theism does not change this.

Germany, America, Russia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Cambodia, Japan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Congo...

You know, after all the huge mass murders that societies have committed in recent history, the idea that people think it is abnormal to kill people and take their stuff is mind boggling. It is only abnormal to kill people like yourself and take their stuff, and the line between "like yourself" and "not like yourself" moves so that there is always a group available to be murdered.

 

[Atreus21]

Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior.

My answer to this: And you think your claim to morality is any more secure? The shifting norms entirely based on the whims of society?

Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion?

A. If humanity is endowed with the necessary self-control for livable societies, I must ask why that is, and why we should obey it if it only leads to the less-caring among us taking what they want from us. B. I defy you to point to any of our ancestors who existed before the talk of a supreme being or beings.

Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant — I will get to this — but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality.

I must reiterate my previous point. I'd like you to point to a time in which people generally didn't worship some supreme being.

This isn't an argument, it's merely a mockery of people who lay their claim to morality in a deity's authority. Without a god or without some supreme order, what is morality but a weakness waiting to be exploited?

 

[Atreus21]

Original piece here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/?src=me&ref=general

And an excerpt:


This article seems written specifically for our own SoccerBallTux, who on many occasions (and this is a paraphrase) has reached the conclusion that religion is the only possible source of "universal" meaning. Further, without that meaning being dictated to us by religion, we would all collectively be universal assholes to each other (because then there would be no "moral" or "meaningful" difference between "eating dinner" or "getting a massage" or "exercising" or "killing your neighbor" or "raping and pillaging", all would be equally valid activities). I believe that conclusion is incorrect.

Personally, I think the article, while being an opinion piece, is very spot on in it's argument. Religion is a mere collection of rules/guidelines to live by, written down on paper, and formalized in process. We get our sense of right and wrong from a combination of our built-in conscience (from birth), as well as by observation and process refinement over the years (from society).

Thoughts?

If our conscience is a result of mindless chance, then why should we follow it?

How is it that atheists believe in no god, but for some reason accept the idea of there being a voice in their head telling them right from wrong?

 

[Atreus21]

I think people are choosing to overlook the obvious. There is no objective morality.

In some societies it was perfectly acceptable to eat people.

Slavery was a matter of economics and morality wasn't something even considered until there was an effective means replacing human labor.

It is honorable to murder in certain contexts.

The theist may say that God gives reality to morals, but in that case it's a code of ethics which God would insist we obey. They aren't "real".

Likewise an atheistic view would be the same, but substituting societal consensus for God.

Morals are still a construct.

Everyone knows this.

Not sure I agree. Just because we treat something subjectively doesn't mean it's not objective.

A similar argument would be that just because we all think 2+2=5 doesn't make it so. There are objective truths, and I think real morality extends from that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Atreus21: My answer to this: And you think your claim to morality is any more secure? The shifting norms entirely based on the whims of society?

M: Morality is genetic and genetics reflects universal law. Morality is the externalization of internal truth that are themselves reflections of the universe. Morality is neither pig nor pork.


A: A. If humanity is endowed with the necessary self-control for livable societies, I must ask why that is, and why we should obey it if it only leads to the less-caring among us taking what they want from us. B. I defy you to point to any of our ancestors who existed before the talk of a supreme being or beings.


M: If there has always been a belief in a supreme being why is it that we have always had the less caring among us taking that they want? Why hasn't this belief solved that if it's been around so long and is so pervasive?


A: I must reiterate my previous point. I'd like you to point to a time in which people generally didn't worship some supreme being.

M: Or point to a time when that belief wasn't what was used by the less caring to take what they want in the name of the supreme being.

A: This isn't an argument, it's merely a mockery of people who lay their claim to morality in a deity's authority. Without a god or without some supreme order, what is morality but a weakness waiting to be exploited?

M: Without a supreme being in whose name we can exploit it would be more difficult to fool people.

Nobody is going to need a religion who knows God is the ground of your being and that only you can the experience of finding who you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

If our conscience is a result of mindless chance, then why should we follow it?

How is it that atheists believe in no god, but for some reason accept the idea of there being a voice in their head telling them right from wrong?

Conscience is mindless chance filtered by survivability. Don't forget that 'what works' part of the chance thingi. Conscious works in the world that exists and was selected for.

Nobody can say why the universe is that way, but I sure like it that it is as it is. That would definitely be a feature I would want to include in any universe I create? And if it was God's idea I want to express my thanks.