Morality without god

In the thread about Sam Harris' views on the moral landscape we actually discussed the thought that it is only with God that humans can have an objective morality. However, the problem is which God!! In the multitude of years that individuals have believed in a higher power, there has been zero worldwide consensus on what/who God is. So, how can the morality that comes from this being be an absolute standard, we cannot even agree on what it says!? So, in this sense we have religious people running around each with his or her own absolute standard of what his or her God would want them to do morally, for some it is kill infidels, for some it is forcefully baptize posthumously, and for some it is love everybody...it seems that within this absolute morality there is some very large wiggle room. However, unlike the religious, those of us who do not believe in a higher power seem to understand that morality must be flexible. Sure there are some things that are always immoral (Harris describes it as that which causes every person involved to suffer), but there must be plasticity within many other moral guidelines. Is it wrong to murder someone to protect the life of a child? Well, according to God's absolute morality it is not okay. It is stated right in the Ten Commandments. And yet, we have Christians doing just that in order to stop abortion, so it seems the absolute guidelines do not even apply to them...Whereas, without God involved in this decision, we can judge the morality of the action based upon how many for whom it will alleviate suffering. The absolute morality in the atheistic sense is simply immorality is that which creates suffering for everyone and the moral landscape flowers off, depending upon how many people one can alleviate suffering for through moral actions. This seems far better than the idea of, "Well, God said it, so I must follow simply this as I have interpreted it."Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Except for an infinite wisdom, in an infinite existence, everything else would be subject to question, speculation and someone elses view.But there is an even better reason. If there is no eternal infinite God, then the only choice is, Matter in motion. As hard as you try to view it otherwise, there is no standardIf matter in motion or survival of the fittest is the answer, then by all rights I should be trying to overthrow or kill you and take everything you have.Or atleast if I did I wouldnt be right or wrongNow watch, if you dont believe God exists and you disagree with my conclusion who cares right, because neither of us is right or wrongLogic, reality, M in Motion, subjectivity, simply wont allow you to have a right or a wrong, or a moralityCall it what you want You are not bringing logic and reality to its true form. Think about it. Your trying to define a morality from a purely human perspectiveThe basket of tasty murdered chicken does not share you "Morality"Take logic where it needs to go, to its basics, defined it by reality and conclusions that can be tested no further than reality will allowDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Interesting. Seems that we are lucky you believe in some ultimate judge.Is there some reason that societies, cultures and nations can't decide what is right and wrong?

Sure, but that doesn't eliminate morality. How would it? But you haven't explained *WHY* this is the case. You've just repeated it.You shouldn't try to do those things to me because they're wrong, regardless of whether or not God exist. Why not? No, a lot of people care. People don't like having those things done to them so you shouldn't. Why not? I shall call it: morality. Not trying... doing. I am defining morality from a human perspective. You say I can't but I don't understand why not. And there might be a case for the immoraily of eating chicken. But it'll be there even if god doesn't exist. That's why I don't see why not having a god means we can't have that. What do you mean?

Hey T12C,Don't be afraid of that Enter key!Check it out:

quote:

---

In the thread about Sam Harris' views on the moral landscape we actually discussed the thought that it is only with God that humans can have an objective morality.

​

However, the problem is which God!! In the multitude of years that individuals have believed in a higher power, there has been zero worldwide consensus on what/who God is.

​

So, how can the morality that comes from this being be an absolute standard, we cannot even agree on what it says!? So, in this sense we have religious people running around each with his or her own absolute standard of what his or her God would want them to do morally, for some it is kill infidels, for some it is forcefully baptize posthumously, and for some it is love everybody...it seems that within this absolute morality there is some very large wiggle room.

​

However, unlike the religious, those of us who do not believe in a higher power seem to understand that morality must be flexible. Sure there are some things that are always immoral (Harris describes it as that which causes every person involved to suffer), but there must be plasticity within many other moral guidelines.

​

Is it wrong to murder someone to protect the life of a child? Well, according to God's absolute morality it is not okay. It is stated right in the Ten Commandments. And yet, we have Christians doing just that in order to stop abortion, so it seems the absolute guidelines do not even apply to them...Whereas, without God involved in this decision, we can judge the morality of the action based upon how many for whom it will alleviate suffering.

​

The absolute morality in the atheistic sense is simply immorality is that which creates suffering for everyone and the moral landscape flowers off, depending upon how many people one can alleviate suffering for through moral actions.

​

This seems far better than the idea of, "Well, God said it, so I must follow simply this as I have interpreted it."

---

Better, no?

Yes, it looks much better. I tend to try and cram a lot of information into one paragraph. I have always written this way...my girlfriend hates editing my papers. Lol.As for what Dawn is stating...I am still at a loss for which God's morality we are supposed to be following? Who is the objective rule giver?Dawn, by continuing to repeat the same idea, without adding any clarification I see no reason to adjust my viewpoint from:
With God: No Objective morals (No idea whose god we should follow)
Without God:
Objectivity in morals because it is simply defined upon a scale of suffering and alleviating suffering.Dawn: Perhaps you could clarify which God, how we know it is that God, and who has the correct interpretation of that God's words? Without these clarifiers, I see zero reason to accept your thought about morality being non-existent without God......P.S.-Why is it always religious people who say without God, I could just kill whoever I want because of survival of the fittest. Being forced to be a moral person by a Big Brother type character would seem to make a far worse human than someone who simply wants to help alleviate some suffering in the world for the benefit of the world.

And why are there so many religious people convicted of murder?
And why have I, as an atheist, not killed anyone?It would appear that atheists are frequently with god and religious people are frequently without.
I wonder which god is with me?
Well, whoever he is, he can fuck right off.

It seems to me that you want it both ways. You seem to ask that Christians come up with a definitive view of God and an objective answer to how he wants us to behave but then say that you would object to a Big Brother forcing us to be moral.It is obvious that Christians do have varying ideas on the nature of God and how we are to respond to Him. In a sense that is the point. As humans we make moral choices. Christ is quoted as saying that we are to love others with our heart, mind and soul. If we take that message on board, whether as a Christian or not, then we are then able to be used by God to alleviate suffering in the world. I believe however, that we have the free will to reject that message and focus on loving ourselves.It isn't about what we do, but about what it is in our hearts that drives us. God is not a Big Brother.Within Christianity God is often called Father just as Jesus did. I suggest that this isn't a bad metaphor to go with. A good human father raises his children to think independently and to choose right over wrong. I believe that God is very much like that.

Your welcome. I don't think it matters to them. They're content on just demonizing the godless.Further, if you're granting a god, then that god could enact an aboslute morality by fiat and it wouldn't matter if you or I could identify what that standard is. It would still be there.There's other arguments I've seen on this topc that go: even if you don't believe in God, he's still necessary for morality to exist. So even the fact that atheist can behave rightly doesn't matter. Just because they're not objective to us doesn't mean that they're not objective at all. If God demands that blue hats are immoral, then it is what it is whether we know it or not. This religious argument is that that's not really a true morality (because its not absolute). It goes that just because you can deem something immoral doesn't make it so and nothing short of God can make that happen. As per the above, it doesn't really matter which god it is. The argument doesn't really work if you don't believe in God. That's just some hippy bullshit. There's been a few people I've wanted to kill. But it wasn't god that stopped me, it was the prospect of prison. Put you in a different time and culture, and I'm sure you'd fold right into the mould like everyone else. The cowboy in the wild west wasn't a worse human than the (luckily capable) passifist lefty of today. Gawsh they're so smug I kid, I kid.

No doubt that we do things that are ultimately detrimental to ourselves and our genes are the cause but it is the self that carries out the action. The motivation is still one of perceived personal benefit. That is perceived by the mind or the self either consciously or subconsciously. It sounds like you are describing a symbiotic relationship between our genes and ourselves. A relationship between two cognizant entities.Could you provide a definition of personhood so that I know what you are talking about. It sounds like dualism to me. The idea that you are something other than the sum of your parts. Whose isn't? In a general sense. Sure, there are bachelors who consciously decide not to have children but if life can be said to have a single goal then surely it is to propagate. In the grenade scenario it is not so much a case of live or die but rather a case of imminent death. I am going to die. The other people with me are going to die. If I jump on the grenade and save the others, what will be the reaction of the rest of the tribe toward any remaining kin? (abe; This is beneficial and important if the genetic line is the same thing as the self. If it isn't then I don't know what the fuck is going on.)Again I will point out that you have to go to the extreme and unusual case to provide an example that only appears to be motivated by something other than selfishness. I wonder how many real world cases of this behaviour you could actually produce. I don't dispute that it happens but when it does we all gasp admiringly and wonder if we would have had the courage to do the same. It usually doesn't happen. I appreciate that there is a lot to be learned at the extreme edges of our behaviour but you shouldn't lose sight of the other 99% of our behaviour.We are talking about the general behaviour of our species and not the extreme case. The grenade scene is an extreme manifestation of our common tendency to recognize the importance of the tribe which has proved beneficial for our survival. I maintain that it is always the case. I would equate it with the will to survive. Our moral behaviour is completely integral with and a result of our most basic instincts of survival and propagation. It is not some magic quality beamed in from control central. Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Isn't that the goal of fundamentalist Muslims? Seems like they're trying to do just that in the name of God. I've never heard of or read about an army of atheist trying to overthrow a government or kill you and take everything you have. But if you read your Bible, God command his followers to do just that.Seems like politics AND religion usually push people to overthrow and kill and take from others.- Oni

It seems to me that what Christ preached was simply the expansion of our sense of tribe. He recognized that kindness and the golden rule are the wellspring of happiness, contentment and a better quality of life. Still, it is all aimed at maximizing benefit for the individual. My life will be better if your life is better.If you consider the moral behaviour as recorded in the bible it is clear that it evolved over time. The sense of tribe was always there. Long before we could tell stories about what was good and what was bad we had a sense about what those things were. The perceived threats to the tribe change and the acceptable reactions to those threats change.Through it all is the immutable core of self preservation. This is the foundational pillar of everyone's morality. Each individual's methods are different and change. Each individual perceives benefits in a different way based on their information and experience. But each individual has the same goal of self preservation and maximum personal benefit be they selfish or 'not'.Christ's brilliant message was that we are all part of the same tribe.

Speaking as a Christian I would say that there is no objective standard as such and frankly I think that if we think about it that is a reasonable position to take.I was raised in a home where I was loved and valued. I was raised in a home where the hallmarks were honesty and generosity. If God exists and if there is some form of ultimate judgement I suggest that it would be unreasonable to judge some one who grew up in a home like mine to the same standard as some one who grew up in a cold unloving home.It is obvious that every person ever born has been subjected to their own unique combination of genes and circumstances. My contention is that even though we might behave badly as humans we can never tell what kind of person we are with all that has influenced our lives, (or maybe even mental illnesses), stripped away. Maybe at the very core of a mass murderer is a heart that hates what he is doing and desperately wants to live out a life characterized by unselfish love. As a Christian, I'm not prepared to say how God will ultimately judge anyone, (which Paul says as well by the way).I think that the best understanding of this is found in CS Lewis' book "The Great Divorce".So yes, you are right. There is no ultimate standard, but it seems to me that is what we should expect of a just god.Edited by GDR, : typo

I had to give your post a thumbs up just based on that statement alone. It is positively brilliant and I'm sure I'll use it many times in discussions. It is clear and concise and so encapsulates all of Jesus' teaching, and particularly His call to love our neighbour. I agree but I'd put a little different spin on it. If I live out the Golden Rule in my life then I think Christ's point is that yes my life will be better because my heart will be able to find joy in seeing joy in others. I completely agree that our moral behaviour evolved over time and for that matter continues to evolve. I understand your point about it happening naturally, but it is also consistent with a god who works through the hearts, minds and imaginations of people so that gradually over time our nature is to become more and more consistent with his. From our perspective we have no way of objectively knowing which case is correct. Certainly we all have a basic instinct for our own good but in spite of what you say I believe that we can rise above that. For example I imagine that most people on this forum have donated to third world causes. From a selfish North American point of view I would be better off if everyone in Africa were to just disappear leaving all of their resources to be used by the tribes that I relate to. Instead the western world often works at saving lives in Africa and providing resources for them which requires us to go against our self interest. (The point earlier is that we can find pleasure in going against our self interest which again is precisely what we should expect if their is a god who desires that we think and act that way.)

Yes I agree. I don't think that we will ever force the concept of God out of the realm of possibilities. There will always be some space to accommodate his retreat. We will know God when we know everything that he is not.However, when I understand the ToE and it's time span and I watch as it provides explanation after explanation for the intricacies of our behaviour. When I accept the relative age and size of the universe. After it becomes clear that real knowledge is ours for the finding. Then it becomes clear that the bible is just a collection of what we knew at that point in time. Simply what we wrote down first in an effort to combat the absurdity of life.It seems to me that the God of the bible is a result of our morality. Again, a cultural reinforcement of the fact that cooperation is beneficial. I think the real question is 'would there be a God without morality?' and I think that the answer is no.Now it may be that our morality is evidence for God's existence but that looks like a loop to me.Edited by Dogmafood, : change it to that.