Morals Without God

[shira]

Daishi, I have a huge book of case studies on morals and ethics as I took a few courses on the matter. The whole point being is that morals and ethics are not always a simple answer. They are not always black and white.

If for example someone is trying to kill you and you have the means to stop them, but that results in them dying as well. Either way you are killing someone. Either that someone is yourself or the other person. There is a whole host of moral dilemmas out there that have no right or wrong answer. Each must be evaluated on their own merit to decide WHICH is the most moral route to take. Even then, not everyone will agree which route is more moral as that is entirely based upon the experience, views, culture, and other factors that influence a person. Even people with the same religious background can differ widely on what they consider the most moral route to take in a moral dilemma.

The moral dilemma example was something I thought up on the fly. If you want to be serious about this then go read some real case studies of stuff that has happened in real life.

A perfect example of what you're saying:

There have been threads on ATPN about thieves fleeing the scene of the crime (a burgled home, for example). There are many on ATPN - including many who preach the moral supremacy of God - who think shooting to kill is perfectly justified in such situations, even though those thieves are not a threat to the homeowner. Many others think shooting to kill in such situations is outrageous.

If God is the sole arbiter of morality, why is there such disagreement about killing?

 

[bhanson]

I do not believe that improving the social contract is good or moral. Can you prove that I am wrong, do you have some form of objective or logical proof that does not "beg the question?" http://begthequestion.info/ You may wish to look up "beg the question" before you reply.

No, I don't think it is ok to steal from someone to save someones life, and I would be upset if you stole from me. Can you prove that my choices are not moral?

What is your counter argument onto what constitutes being good and moral?

You're asking to prove that you're wrong, but you're not providing anything to prove that you're right.

And implicitly you're saying that unless I prove you're wrong, then you're right. This is denying a conjunct, as it is hardly clear what is right or wrong in many situations and an action may be more or less right than any of numerous alternatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

Love is bullshit.

You died of a broken heart and do not know it. If you do not risk the pain love can bring you will stay dead. Risk it, my friend.

 

[daishi5]

Daishi, I have a huge book of case studies on morals and ethics as I took a few courses on the matter. The whole point being is that morals and ethics are not always a simple answer. They are not always black and white.

If for example someone is trying to kill you and you have the means to stop them, but that results in them dying as well. Either way you are killing someone. Either that someone is yourself or the other person. There is a whole host of moral dilemmas out there that have no right or wrong answer. Each must be evaluated on their own merit to decide WHICH is the most moral route to take. Even then, not everyone will agree which route is more moral as that is entirely based upon the experience, views, culture, and other factors that influence a person. Even people with the same religious background can differ widely on what they consider the most moral route to take in a moral dilemma.

The moral dilemma example was something I thought up on the fly. If you want to be serious about this then go read some real case studies of stuff that has happened in real life.

Your missing the point, even though you allude to it. What is moral is a personal decision, there is no objective proof that an action is or is not moral. Your example of stealing from a car to save a persons life was stated as a moral action. You did not say you believe it to be moral, but you stated it as an objective fact, that the action was moral. But, if something is objectively fact, that usually means it can be proven. There is no way to prove that stealing to save her life is moral.

This is the argument about morals in the face of no divine being in a nutshell. Without a "god" there is no objective moral action. If there is a magic sky fairy who created the universe and all things in it, and he drives the heavens and earth through his will, what he wants becomes "good." It does not matter what he wants, his desire is the benchmark, no matter what it is. If the sky fairy says "impale all left handed red heads" then the moral action is to get out the stakes and chase down some red heads.

When you remove the magical sky fairy, you can no longer use the sky fairies book of rules to determine if you were a good person. Most people seem to believe that humans have some form of moral guidebook that guides human beings to be moral, but that is a crock of shit. Look at the slaughter in Darfur, that happened under our noses, all of the nations knew about it and we didn't do anything to stop it. The Americans slaughtered the native indians, the Germans slaughtered Jews, gays, and gypsies (people still hate them), the russians slaughtered russians, the Japanese slaughtered the Chinese, then the Chinese slaughtered Chinese. America just got done slaughtering a bunch of brown people because our previous administration was incompetent. Now our current administration is continuing to fly people to war zones so they can be held without trial and with no rights. It seems to me that by our own moral standards, humanity is just pure evil. Would it be moral to wipe out humanity?

What it really comes down to is you cannot prove if something is moral or not. I can use litmus paper to test if something is an acid, but there is no test that can prove something is good. People have an opinion if something is good, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[daishi5]

What is your counter argument onto what constitutes being good and moral?

You're asking to prove that you're wrong, but you're not providing anything to prove that you're right.

And implicitly you're saying that unless I prove you're wrong, then you're right. This is denying a conjunct, as it is hardly clear what is right or wrong in many situations and an action may be more or less right than any of numerous alternatives.

Because I say so. That is it, the entire basis of my proof. And, I am pretty sure it is the basis of your proof. Right now, you said something is moral, I said it is immoral. If you get one more person to agree with you, does it become moral again? If I find two people to agree with me, does the action suddenly change to being immoral? I would assume you consider the idea that morals are determined by vote to be ludicrous. So, there has to be an objective determinant of what is moral.

I believe the objective determinant of morality is what makes the earth a cleaner place for penguins to live. If your actions don't advance that goal, they are immoral. So, I don't think your actions would help penguins and are therefore immoral. Why am I wrong?

 

[shira]

Your missing the point, even though you allude to it. What is moral is a personal decision, there is no objective proof that an action is or is not moral. Your example of stealing from a car to save a persons life was stated as a moral action. You did not say you believe it to be moral, but you stated it as an objective fact, that the action was moral. But, if something is objectively fact, that usually means it can be proven. There is no way to prove that stealing to save her life is moral.

This is the argument about morals in the face of no divine being in a nutshell. Without a "god" there is no objective moral action. If there is a magic sky fairy who created the universe and all things in it, and he drives the heavens and earth through his will, what he wants becomes "good." It does not matter what he wants, his desire is the benchmark, no matter what it is. If the sky fairy says "impale all left handed red heads" then the moral action is to get out the stakes and chase down some red heads.

When you remove the magical sky fairy, you can no longer use the sky fairies book of rules to determine if you were a good person. Most people seem to believe that humans have some form of moral guidebook that guides human beings to be moral, but that is a crock of shit. Look at the slaughter in Darfur, that happened under our noses, all of the nations knew about it and we didn't do anything to stop it. The Americans slaughtered the native indians, the Germans slaughtered Jews, gays, and gypsies (people still hate them), the russians slaughtered russians, the Japanese slaughtered the Chinese, then the Chinese slaughtered Chinese. America just got done slaughtering a bunch of brown people because our previous administration was incompetent. Now our current administration is continuing to fly people to war zones so they can be held without trial and with no rights. It seems to me that by our own moral standards, humanity is just pure evil. Would it be moral to wipe out humanity?

What it really comes down to is you cannot prove if something is moral or not. I can use litmus paper to test if something is an acid, but there is no test that can prove something is good. People have an opinion if something is good, but that doesn't make it true.

What you seem to be overlooking is that deferring to God as the ultimate moral arbiter is futile, since there's no way to know what God - assuming God exists in the first place - wants us to do. Just look at the history of humanity to PROVE beyond any doubt the we humans have no idea what God wants. So judging what's moral ultimately falls on the mind of mankind, regardless of whether or not God exists. Thus, morality WITHOUT God is the only option.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What you seem to be overlooking is that deferring to God as the ultimate moral arbiter is futile, since there's no way to know what God - assuming God exists in the first place - wants us to do. Just look at the history of humanity to PROVE beyond any doubt the we humans have no idea what God wants. So judging what's moral ultimately falls on the mind of mankind, regardless of whether or not God exists. Thus, morality WITHOUT God is the only option.

Which is still arbitrary. The only reason why morals have any validity is that those who do not adopt those of a given society are punished.

It's the will of the many. It's not good or bad, it just is.

 

[shira]

Which is still arbitrary. The only reason why morals have any validity is that those who do not adopt those of a given society are punished.

It's the will of the many. It's not good or bad, it just is.

We essentially agree.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We essentially agree.

I think so. Does that mean that we believe they are worthless? In both cases I think not.

 

[daishi5]

What you seem to be overlooking is that deferring to God as the ultimate moral arbiter is futile, since there's no way to know what God - assuming God exists in the first place - wants us to do. Just look at the history of humanity to PROVE beyond any doubt the we humans have no idea what God wants. So judging what's moral ultimately falls on the mind of mankind, regardless of whether or not God exists. Thus, morality WITHOUT God is the only option.

If there was a god, he could come down and actually tell us what he wants. But, I would demand a lot more proof than a bunch of men in funny hats saying so. I believe that either A. if there is a god, he doesn't much care what I do, or B. he isn't there. I get your point, but I am saying that if a god existed, there would be an actual guideline to be judged against, even if we did not know what it was it would still exist. In the abscense of god, we must make up our own, but there is no way to know which one we make up is best.

 

[totalnoob]

This is the argument about morals in the face of no divine being in a nutshell. Without a "god" there is no objective moral action. If there is a magic sky fairy who created the universe and all things in it, and he drives the heavens and earth through his will, what he wants becomes "good." It does not matter what he wants, his desire is the benchmark, no matter what it is. If the sky fairy says "impale all left handed red heads" then the moral action is to get out the stakes and chase down some red heads.

Why should a god be exempt from reasoning? Why should whatever he wills objectively immediately become "the good"? Might makes right? That's BS. It's still subjective. To say whatever God declares magically becomes "the good" robs the concept of all meaning. If however you say that God (in his infinite wisdom) merely RECOGNIZES the good and adheres to it in all cases..that his moral assertions are based on the omniscient knowledge he has of the consequences of choosing one path over another, that makes much more sense..and makes him much more worthy of respect.. However it also means that morality is something that transcends even God. Rather than inventing "the good" on a whim, he merely recognizes it and passes his wisdom along..which renders him redundant/useless in the realm of morality, because his reasons for viewing certain actions as right or wrong are open in principle for anyone to discover.

 

[Moonbeam]

Which is still arbitrary. The only reason why morals have any validity is that those who do not adopt those of a given society are punished.

It's the will of the many. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Nope. Morality is the Will of God. He who has died to himself in his love for God is a prisoner. He has become the Will of God and every action he takes is Perfection. There is no truth, no morality, no law, no fact other than that that expressed by Love in action. There is only Love and Love is Being. As long as we think we live in time and separation. Thought is fear. Love is the end of separation, the death of thought, the end of time, the door to eternity, and perfect morality. Love is the end of doubt and questions. Love is the ultimate simplicity and the end of need.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nope. Morality is the Will of God. He who has died to himself in his love for God is a prisoner. He has become the Will of God and every action he takes is Perfection. There is no truth, no morality, no law, no fact other than that that expressed by Love in action. There is only Love and Love is Being. As long as we think we live in time and separation. Thought is fear. Love is the end of separation, the death of thought, the end of time, the door to eternity, and perfect morality. Love is the end of doubt and questions. Love is the ultimate simplicity and the end of need.

I agree entirely with this post.

 

[daishi5]

Why should a god be exempt from reasoning? Why should whatever he wills objectively immediately become "the good"? Might makes right? That's BS. It's still subjective. To say whatever God declares magically becomes "the good" robs the concept of all meaning. If however you say that God (in his infinite wisdom) merely RECOGNIZES the good and adheres to it in all cases..that his moral assertions are based on the omniscient knowledge he has of the consequences of choosing one path over another, that makes much more sense..and makes him much more worthy of respect.. However it also means that morality is something that transcends even God. Rather than inventing "the good" on a whim, he merely recognizes it and passes his wisdom along..which renders him redundant/useless in the realm of morality, because his reasons for viewing certain actions as right or wrong are open in principle for anyone to discover.

So, you are saying that "god" could be judged by whether or not he did "good." If there is a "god" and there is an objective measure of "good" that he himself (herself) did not create, than that means that there must be some other being more knowing than "god" who set down the meaning of "good." Nevermind, I see you came to the same conclusion, I just didn't read far enough down.

 

[spittledip]

Why should a god be exempt from reasoning? Why should whatever he wills objectively immediately become "the good"? Might makes right? That's BS. It's still subjective. To say whatever God declares magically becomes "the good" robs the concept of all meaning. If however you say that God (in his infinite wisdom) merely RECOGNIZES the good and adheres to it in all cases..that his moral assertions are based on the omniscient knowledge he has of the consequences of choosing one path over another, that makes much more sense..and makes him much more worthy of respect.. However it also means that morality is something that transcends even God. Rather than inventing "the good" on a whim, he merely recognizes it and passes his wisdom along..which renders him redundant/useless in the realm of morality, because his reasons for viewing certain actions as right or wrong are open in principle for anyone to discover.

No, you have it backwards. It is not that what God does is automatically "good" when he wills something. What God does is good b/c God is the embodiment of perfection and goodness. Therefore, everything done by the embodiment of perfection and goodness (God) is good. You squeeze oranges you get orange juice; God only does good b/c he is good.

By the same token, anything done contrary to the embodiment of perfection and goodness is evil.

 

[totalnoob]

No, you have it backwards. It is not that what God does is automatically "good" when he wills something. What God does is good b/c God is the embodiment of perfection and goodness.

According to who? Him? lol.. You are just pushing the problem back one level buddy. If an evil being created the world and wrote a bible, would it not claim that it's nature was perfect? How can you know? Need I remind you that using words like "good", "evil" and "perfect" constitute judgment calls on your part?

You believe God is good. Based on everything you know, you are judging him to be good, which means there MUST BE some criterion you are using to determine that he is good. Hence, there must be some actions he could take within the world that would make him cease being good in your eyes. What are they? Tell me. Is there anything God can do that would make him cease being perfect in your eyes? If not..if you view every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the "goodness" and "perfection" of God, you have rendered those labels absolutely worthless.

If things that lead to immense human suffering won't make god cease being perfect (commanding slavery and genocide in the bible, creating people like Hitler and putting them in power, creating famines, deadly diseases, parasites, natural disasters, drowning the entire planet in a flood, etc), what will? If the worst things imaginable are compatible with the "goodness" of God, you have robbed the concept of all meaning. This being the case, you can't legitimately call God "good". The only attribute you can accurately and honestly ascribe to him (and his actions) is "incomprehensible".

 

[WHAMPOM]

Can anyone be thought moral if they follow a code imposed from without through fear of punishment or hope of reward?

 

[Moonbeam]

According to who? Him? lol.. You are just pushing the problem back one level buddy. If an evil being created the world and wrote a bible, would it not claim that it's nature was perfect? How can you know? Need I remind you that using words like "good", "evil" and "perfect" constitute judgment calls on your part?

You believe God is good. Based on everything you know, you are judging him to be good, which means there MUST BE some criterion you are using to determine that he is good. Hence, there must be some actions he could take within the world that would make him cease being good in your eyes. What are they? Tell me. Is there anything God can do that would make him cease being perfect in your eyes? If not..if you view every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the "goodness" and "perfection" of God, you have rendered those labels absolutely worthless.

If things that lead to immense human suffering won't make god cease being perfect (commanding slavery and genocide in the bible, creating people like Hitler and putting them in power, creating famines, deadly diseases, parasites, natural disasters, drowning the entire planet in a flood, etc), what will? If the worst things imaginable are compatible with the "goodness" of God, you have robbed the concept of all meaning. This being the case, you can't legitimately call God "good". The only attribute you can accurately and honestly ascribe to him (and his actions) is "incomprehensible".

You don't understand. There is only love. There is only love. There isn't any good or evil. There is only love. There is only perfection.

 

[spittledip]

According to who? Him? lol.. You are just pushing the problem back one level buddy. If an evil being created the world and wrote a bible, would it not claim that it's nature was perfect? How can you know? Need I remind you that using words like "good", "evil" and "perfect" constitute judgment calls on your part?

If God was evil, would you experience anything good? Would there be a possibility of good? Would evil create anything that could be considered good at all? And if the root of all things, God, was evil, would He not be the ultimate evil? God does describe Himself as good. I have seen enough good and known of how things should be to know that God speaks truthfully about Himself. Why would God, who can crush the entire universe with a thought (which is absolutely nothing to Him in terms of power), lie about being good? That is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

You believe God is good. Based on everything you know, you are judging him to be good, which means there MUST BE some criterion you are using to determine that he is good. Hence, there must be some actions he could take within the world that would make him cease being good in your eyes. What are they? Tell me. Is there anything God can do that would make him cease being perfect in your eyes? If not..if you view every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the "goodness" and "perfection" of God, you have rendered those labels absolutely worthless.

God cannot do evil b/c it is contrary to who He is. It is his very holiness that makes it necessary that evil is punished. That said, since we are talking hypothetically, obviously there are things that God could do that would make me recant this position. If I witnessed God torturing babies and kittens while laughing maniacally, that would seal the deal. In other words, God taking pleasure in sadistic acts.

If things that lead to immense human suffering won't make god cease being perfect (commanding slavery and genocide in the bible, creating people like Hitler and putting them in power, creating famines, deadly diseases, parasites, natural disasters, drowning the entire planet in a flood, etc), what will? If the worst things imaginable are compatible with the "goodness" of God, you have robbed the concept of all meaning. This being the case, you can't legitimately call God "good". The only attribute you can accurately and honestly ascribe to him (and his actions) is "incomprehensible".

I do not pretend to understand everything that God does in a specific sense. I don't come close to understanding God Himself, as He is incredibly complicated. i don't even understand myself or other people alot of the times so how am I supposed to completely understand God? Much as people like you cannot understand or explain how everything started, among a vast number of other things, I do not understand everything involved in my belief system. To expect this is ridiculous b/c humans are very limited.

I don't pretend to understand lots of stuff that happens to me and others in this life either. My life, like the lives of most people, has not been a pleasure cruise. There have been good things and painful things in my life. The interesting thing is that I can see God working in certain bad things in my life to change me for the better. There are some bad things that are of my own doing, but God works in those as well. That said, God does let us suffer for the bad that we do, often times other people suffer for the bad that we do. And sometimes it happens on a massive scale. Nations make horrible choices and lots of suffering is the result.

What should good do with evil in the world? Should good just let evil do whatever it wants, or should good intervene and punish evil? And how much evil should good put up with? How about when YOU do evil? How much evil should good put up with from you?

 

[spittledip]

Can anyone be thought moral if they follow a code imposed from without through fear of punishment or hope of reward?

No they cannot. Excellent point.

 

[IGBT]

we are all born wild animals. Any major metropolitan area in the US is 24 hours away from cannibalism and cluster fusks in the streets if society collapses and supply lines are cut.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Higher equaling absolute is completely irrelevant. They are two completely different characteristics.

If morality is subjective, how can there be an appeal to a higher standard when we claim that something is right or wrong? It ends up just being a difference of opinion and nothing else. Whoever has the power gets to enforce the opinion. But what makes one opinion right and one opinion wrong?

You missed the entire "higher" angle.
Reality makes the determination. It doesn't matter what you think, reality determines what works and what does not.
You cannot force your opinion on Mother Nature. To be in full defiance is to die. Mother Nature doesn't care if you think you can breathe vacuum or swim in lava -- your opinion is irrelevant.
Same goes for the reactions of other animals. Whether you punch a lion or a human in the nose, Mother Nature won't shield you from the consequences just because you have an opinion. The consequences will be what the consequences will be.

Morality not being absolute does not mean absolute freedom. You are still stuck within a system not of your choosing, with death being the only escape.

 

[DominionSeraph]

This is a baseless assumption. Sure we observe it, but science can't prove why it exists-- why evolution evolved the need to survive.

There is no need to survive, strictly speaking. Therefor, what reason is there why any member of society shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want?

It violates the core value instilled by evolution. And that value doesn't need to be justified as being the product of another value system. That it exists is good enough.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But if you're scared of contractually-stated consequences, then you're not sure of getting away with it.

Please answer my original question. If you could get away with it, would you steal from someone? Yes or no.

We steal all the time.

We all steal from Mr. Sun, do we not? He imposes no consequences for us taking his warmth and energy with no reciprocation. We use the gravity of Mr. Earth along with friction bestowed by Ms. Universe to keep things in place. My speakers are enslaved -- when they output sound I give nary a thought as to whether they have thoughts and desires -- the only cost involved is the small cost to pay for the generation of an AC voltage with the power output of a couple of watts.

You may try to counter with, "But those are not human beings;" but that would be philosophically naive. "Surety of getting away with it," i.e., resulting in no reactive consequences, is quite far removed from any interaction with a normally-defined human. You can't just remove one or two surface features from a human and call it, "A human being who can impose no consequences," and have your result have any validity. To properly construct the concept you have to go in and strip away everything you have learned through interaction. The result will look VERY inhuman.

If you want to get to the point where you're studying the response to something that will impose no consequences due to interaction with a personality, it's MUCH easier to just use something that doesn't have that response to begin with.
If you want to know your moral obligations to a rock, use a rock. Stripping away elements of something else until you think you have something resembling a rock will just leave you open to the possibility that you made an error and left in an element you shouldn't have.
Bleed-over from parent to daughter concept is a major problem. That is why we philosophers will break things down to isolate the individual elements we are examining -- so we can construct models that either only have those elements as variables, or so we can factor out other variables present that are outside the scope of the issue under examination.

You are in over your head.

 

[qliveur]

I'll take that as a "yes".