Morality without god

And I agree.
My proposal for adjusting the Golden Rule makes it easier to understand, not more difficult. Therefore it would be easier to grasp for those who are unable to do the "heavy lifting of moral calculus."The Golden Rule itself can be misinterpreted in the exact same way Dr A is misinterpretting my proposed adjustment.
However, obviously there is a contextual situation where my proposal makes it easier to identify the right thing to do.There is no negative added in.
There is a postive (clarity) added in.Therefore, it's better.
I'm not claiming that it's a "perfect rule" and can be used all alone. I'm just saying that it's better than the Golden Rule when used in the same context as the Golden Rule is generally used in. The fact that the Golden Rule "references the self" (focuses on thinking of yourself...) is exactly what makes it a poor choice of words. Morality is about being good. Attempting to think of others is generally much better than thinking of yourself. My proposal focuses more on thinking of others instead of focusing more on thinking of yourself.
It's pretty simple and basic.If you're going to disagree with my point, how about trying to disagree with it in context?

quote:

---

If I like chocolate ice-cream, is it better for me to force everyone else to have chocolate ice-cream (strict Golden Rule)? Or better for me to let everyone else choose whatever option they like (my proposal)?
Message 96

---

That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, can you explain why you think it would be better to force everyone else to have chocolate ice-cream?
Can you explain how "treat others the way you want to be treated" is clearer than "treat others the way they want to be treated" concerning this context in indicating that it's obviously better to let others choose the flavour of ice-cream they would like?Any other course of disagreement (like Dr A's questions) are simply taking things out of context... Not only that, but the Golden Rule itself can be taken out of context in exactly the same way to be affected by exactly the same issue. It's a strawman that doesn't even have a straw-point to make. It's like a drawing of a strawman.

The point I had been making was for a moral prime mover and not specifically for the God of the Bible. We can take away our concept of God but that tells us nothing about whether God actually exists or not. If we take away our morals then it is probably safe to assume that there is no moral god, but who knows what other god might exist. I would suggest that moral behaviour only started because God planted the seed in the hearts and imaginations of humans. God has continued to nourish the seed and as a result our sense of morality has continued to grow and for that matter our understanding of the nature of God has continued to evolve. I make that claim as I am a theist. As an atheist you claim that the evolution of our morality is the result of the natural socialization of humans that came into existence from a non- intelligent, non-moral first cause. (At least I think you would put it something like that. )Our individual beliefs about the origins of morality flow from my theistic and your atheistic beliefs. In both cases our conclusions are circular, or a loop as you put it.

Well for example I am not the same person as my son. I may well do things that are ultimately detrimental to me as a person because my selfish genes cause me to act in ways that benefit my son as a person at the expense of me as a person.That which benefits my gene carrier may well not benefit me. I don't really see how you can dispute that except by insisting that my gene carrier (i.e. my son in this case) is the same person as me. Which obviously he isn't. I would agree that life does indeed have that unconscious "goal". And it is this goal that ultimately underlies all evolved human behaviour. But individual persons may not have that goal at all. Which is why I think your conflation of selfish genes and the idea that everything we do is for personal benefit rather than genetic benefit is just wrong. If a childless man who could make a run for it decides instead to leap on that grenade to save the lives of unrelated strangers he isn't doing himself or even his genes any good at all. This is a genuinely selfless act. So how do you explain this with your personal benefit argument?I'll tell you how I explain it in selfish genes terms. We start by asking in genetic terms what is happening here? What is happening is the misfiring of our ancestral instincts. We evolved in close knit tribes where all those around us were pretty closely related and thus acts of such bravery for the survival of the "tribe" may well have had a positive result for the propagation of certain genes within the tribe. Now of course in a world of international travel and a population of billions it is ridiculously unlikely that any significant genetic advantage will be gained by the childless soldier far from home giving his life for the greater good in our example. But the instinct is still there. Still there in the same way that the instinct to seek out high fat and high sugar foods is still there despite most of the Western world being more at risk from overeating than under-eating.The reason we desire Big Macs is the same reason we are capable of acts of complete selflessness such as the grenade covering soldier in our example.The reason is - Selfish genes taken out of the environment in which they evolved to propagate most effectively.

I should have explained more fully the statement of mine that I have quoted. I agree with your post. What I meant was that if there was an evil god then it would be in our individual selfish best interest to get ourselves on the right side of that god but it would still be the wrong thing to do, and it would be wrong for mankind in general. (If a god like that actually existed then I can’t see how we would exist at all in the first place.)I started a thread Do Christians Worship Different Gods? titled Do Christians Worship Different Gods?In that thread I made the point that I would not be interested in worshipping a god as depicted in parts of the OT where the writer says that God advocates the stoning to death of people for minor offences. For the sake of the argument I indicated that worshipping a god with different attributes in effect meant that we worshipped different gods. Here is an example. Message 21.Bottom line - I think we are in agreement. The trouble is that we don’t seem to have an argument as I agree with you. Actually the Biblical version is probably closer to your thinking when it says to love our neighbour, (others), as we love ourselves. I understand that to mean that we always want the best for ourselves, ergo we should always want the best for others as well.

Yes, it was a silly example meant to make an obvious point Yes, and even better, I'm not confused anymore! Yay! Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. (I think you accidentally replied to my post meant for Dogmafood and thought I was talking to you? This text of mine you quoted wasn't directed at you...)

Sorry about using the wrong quote. I had to go out in the middle of my reply and I was jumping back and forth to "word" and mixed up the posts.Just so we're clear the what I meant to reply to was this: Once again we seem to be in agreement. I think our sole area of disagreement is that it is my belief that all morality comes from God working in our hearts, minds and imaginations. I think you might have a problem with that. (I still think it's a stretch to believe that intelligence and morality can evolve from a non-intelligent non-moral first cause. )

Meh. A minor little teeny-tiny one. Hardly worth mentioning (as long as it doesn't lead into those other issues where we've clarrified that we actually agree on).
I suppose you can think of my thoughts on the matter as sort of an abiogenesis/evolution kind of thing.
"I'm more concerned about the evolution side, I have my own pet-theory about the abiogenesis side... but whatever that is, it doesn't matter too much on how evolution works."...becomes..."I'm more concerned with our use of morality in the here-and-now, I have my own pet-theory about where it all came from originally... but whatever that is, it doesn't matter too much on how we use our morality today." I also kind of think that regardless of where our morality actually comes from... even given that it comes straight from God Himself... we still have absolutely no obligation to follow God's "absolute moral charter" unless we deem it worthy ourselves (or "from our hearts.") I like to think of morality as a responsibility... an honorable thing to do because we choose to do it. Take that away, and it's just "following orders." Followng orders reduces morality to an unthinking level... in which case, it seems like an awful waste of our brains and intelligent abilities. I don't But, as I just said, I really don't care if we disagree on this point. I don't see how it makes much of a difference in how we use our moral systems to treat each other in the here-and-now.

We agree on this completely. I freely choose to follow and worship God because I believe that God is/was embodied in Jesus and that He is loving, kind, merciful and just. I am free to, and often, (If I tell the truth - usually) do, go against my beliefs and act out of self interest but Like everyone else, I'm a work in progress. This is a real quibble but I have a bit of a problem with the word honourable. I'm afraid that by thinking of it that way we can become self-congratulatory. (Boy I'm a great guy for spending the last hour serving in the soup kitchen.) I think I'd say that we choose morality, (as you and I understand it), because it is the desire of our heart.

And here we are! (This is a reply to Huntard's Message 62 from Anyone ever heard of Rebecca Watson?) Perhaps "wrong" isn't the best choice of words here. I just mean that it's "bad."1. Definitions
"The action was bad" = something that hurts someone else, as described by that someone else.
"The action was good" = something that benefits someone else, as described by that someone else.
"Being bad" = Trying to do bad things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to hurt someone else
"Being good" = Trying to do good things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to benefit someone else2. Chronological tense here is very important:
You can only "know" if something was good or bad after the action is over, and after you're able to communicate and get a reaction from the person who was affected.
It is therefore quite possible to constantly (never faultering, not even for a split second) to "be good" but do some "bad things."
That is, if you were honestly trying not to hurt someone but you actually did end up hurting them... I would describe this as "being good" but accidentally doing "a bad thing."3. The point is to provide a system where you can honestly and objectively (!) tally your "good things" and "bad things" and then be able to use that information in order to improve your ability to "be good."4. No one else can every really know if you were "being good" (trying to be good)... that is subjective and a personal decision.
However, using this system, other people can objectively (!) know whether or not you have done a lot of good things, or a lot of bad things. This way, they can make a very informed opinion on whether or not they think you're "being good" (trying to be good) or not.The reason I put the "(!)" after the "objectively" words is to indicate that I think this is a very important aspect, and one that many moral systems are lacking.Now, onto my answers to your questions: Yes, it is "a bad thing." You may or may not have been trying to be good, however. The point is to provide an objective basis for identifying good/bad events. This way honest people who want to try to be good can have a way to do so. Also, people who do not want to try to be good will eventually not have any excuses (sooner or later, the excuse "well, I was trying..." won't work if you're never, ever able to actually "do good" things). I'm quite willing to admit that the "facts as I understand them" about the situation are lacking or even incorrect. I did explain why I think the dude did mean to cause her discomfort (but again, I could simply be wrong about that). And I am unaware of what, specifically, the "pretty nasty things" she said about him. I was just taking Percy for his word that she was "raking him over the coals." From what I gathered, crashfrog seems to indicate that she simply stated that she did not want the attention. I simply assumed the truth was somewhere in the middle. I certainly could be mistaken there as well. I agree, kind of. Whether or not elevator guy thought his proposition was going to be a good thing... is something only elevator guy really knows.
I do not judge if he was trying to be good or not, because I can't.
I can only judge the facts. It's a fact that Rebecca was hurt. Therefore what elevator-guy did was "a bad thing."
I'm assuming it's a fact that elevator guy was hurt. Therefore what Rebecca did in return was "a bad thing."
Whether or not they were being good (trying to not hurt others) when they said what they did... is not something I can judge, so I don't.
Whether or not they take in this information, and update their way of dealing with others is also (currently) nothing I can judge. However, perhaps what has happened since (if anything?) actually does allow us to judge such a thing. Has elevator-guy had a similar situation and changed his MO? Has Rebecca had a similar situation and changed her MO? These things, if they occur, will result in objective (based on my definitions, anyway) results. Using my system, we would (eventually, if we were able to follow these people around) be able to tell if they're updating their position in a way to attempt to reduce being bad and increase being good.Does your system have a way to eventually tell which one is an objectively good person and which one is objectively bad? No.
According to me, I should avoid hurting someone on purpose.
According to me, I should take in this information and update my own moral feedback system such that I can try to not hurt anyone when I do interact with them.
According to me, it's simply honest to identify when a person's been hurt, or when a person's been benefitted.
According to me, it's simply honest to try and maximize the times I benefit other people, and minimize the times I hurt them.I've just given definitions to "good" and "bad" such that I can do so objectively. I think that's a pretty decent leg-up on moral-relativism.And sometimes I do it with a smirk, 'cause I think it's funny.
Which may very well be bad to you... but who knows how many lurkers I'm getting to laugh?

I agree But it doesn't have to be.
That is something that only I will ever know (which, actually, is required for it to remain honourable, even...).
Or, maybe, it's something that only God and I will ever know

It's not for to me to judge, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would think that you are in His good books.

Bertot writes CS writes Bertot writes: It does is if you remove yourself from trying to find standards only in and from a human perspective. This is not only a discussion website, it is a debate website. Which means that you would have to show that the animal kingdom would have to share your so-called standards. Lets assume you were instantly transported to the Aztecs and Incas time period. How would you convince them that there behavior was immoral and yours Moral?How do you establish that your so-called Morality is superior to or right or wrong. Pure reson and reality, without God, an infinitely wise God, does not allow you a standard of morality, even if you choose to call it thatCS writes Dawn Bertot writes: Surely you are not so simple that you cannot understand, that simply calling something doesnt make it right in or wrong. For it to be morality it has to be either right or wrong. Defining right or wrong, from only within the human perspective makes your so-called morality silly at bestYou first have to demonstrate that yours is the only standard by which to judge what murder is, before you take the cows life for your consumption. If you cannot do this, then your so-called morality is nothing more than molecules in motion, even if you call it moralitySurely you are not so simply, as not to be able to see that point
Now watch, let me ask you a simple question, then you answer it as a part of the debate process. If I disagree with you that you have an actual morality, that which actually describes what is right or wrong, how will you establish that either or both of us, is either right or wrongYou cant even get past this hurdle, to even address the qurestion of wether it is right or wrong to murderD Bertot writes CS writes Its simple. You cant proceed in discussion about morality, as if you have delt with the basic problem as to how you arrive at a standard of right and wrong. Logic and reality doesnt allow that luxuryExample Mr Dawkins says God is an evil so and so. Yet he firmly beliefs in survival of the fittest, evolution, matter n motion and so on.Yet he first needs to give us the standard of evil, tell us how he arrived at such a conclusion, then explain why, his so-called standard, doesnt apply to the animal kingdomBut he needs to do this from a standpoint of logic. Not just say oh well thats just the way it is. Of course there is no way for him to do this from any rational standpointSo CS, deciding to call it morality, doesnt make it moralityDawn Bertot

Oni writes Bertot writes: Unfortunately, emotional responses to logical propositions, dont get anything accomplished. What people do in the name og God, has nothing to do with weather he is infinte in wisdom and eternal in character. If he is, then there is no other standard and he is the standardSince humans share the same characteristics in reality, that of finitness and decay, with other species, they cannot be used as examples of what is right or wrong. therefore no real morality. Just molecules doing thingsIt seems therefore logical, that there are no other choices that logic will allow. Unless you or others could provide valid reason to show why humans standards are the only correct choices. Or why they should be considered the standard of right or wrongMy guess is that the only thing you will be able to do, is talk AT morality, not actually demonstate it exists without God.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

But this is the problem, there is no evidence for God. Whether or not he is infinitely wise and eternal in character should be a second question to whether or not he exists.So, for the sake of debate (since this is a debate site), let us pretend (for you pretend, for me deal with evidenced ideas only) that God does not exist. There is no personal infinitely wise and eternal creator. Now, we still have these morals that must be explained. It seems far more logical that morality is derived from being a social species through evolution. We even see acts of selflessness in lower primates, who will help to feed the old in the group or save another even at risk to themselves.You are asking that we make a giant assumption to begin the entire premise and then this assumption is all that would lead us to saying that morality stems from God. If we take away your assumption, are we left with no explanation for the existence of morals or are there testable hypothesis that can be looked into?As I see it, God should not be either A. The first thing you go to when the evidence has not even been gathered yet. The problem with this viewpoint is that you are doing what the religious have done for centuries. Setting yourself up to realize that your God was not actually present where you thought he/she/it was. Also, B. God should not be the default when the information is not leading any further. The problem with this idea is that we do not know why the information is not moving us forward. However, it could be that our techology just has not allowed us to answer that scenario.Finally, what else are we to judge this God by other than A. the actions of his/her/its followers and B. the words his/her/its followers claim is from him/her/it? Without those two things, there is absolutely no evidence that can be found for the existence of this being. This means that the actions done in the name of God are the only real piece of evidence that a God exists. And if this is the case, then this God is far from the moral standard that I feel I want to follow or that we do follow.

The preferred flavour of ice cream is not the issue. The issue is the freedom to choose the flavour that you prefer. That decision is made by referring to the fact that you appreciate that freedom and therefore should extend it to everyone else.Any quantification of 'good' is ultimately made by referring to the self. Considering what the other person wants is right because you appreciate it when others do it for you.It is all about you and you should embrace the fact because it is the only morsel of significance that you have . By you I mean us of course.