Morality without God is impossible

The behaviour of any individual actor is a result of their innate sense of self preservation and every choice made attempts to serve that goal. All judgements of good and bad begin from this reference point which is unique to the individual.If this is true then the morality of any action can be determined by assessing how effectively the action served the goal. This would apply universally without exception.I anticipate that someone will point out that there are plenty of immoral actions that serve self preservation of the individual but in every case these are short term benefits. I don't see the god either but how could you tell anyway? Universal conditions lend no support to the idea of a god.

I am referring to the most fundamental basis for making any choice or taking any action. There are a multitude of explanations that an actor might provide but they all trace back to the programmed desire for self preservation. Any choice that benefits the actor, in whatever way, attempts to serve the ultimate and fundamental goal of self preservation. We survive by making choices that benefit us. (This is probably why we evolved a brain in the first place and can make choices at all.)My point is that if we all make decisions in the same way with the same machinery then there is a fundamentally common or universal element to our behaviour. Every moral code is a distillation of the results of all those previous choices made by members of the group. An attempt to enforce behaviour that benefits the group. The individual complies because the group is beneficial to them.Every religion that ever existed was an attempt to codify the behaviour that was perceived to benefit the group and even though they are all different they have the same origin. Self preservation and reproduction.So if there is a universal code of conduct it is to live long enough to breed. A couple of hundred thousand years later and we have the modern world with spiteful ice cream eaters and all.

What is the difference between instinct and choice? You point out that choice can override instinct but the reverse is equally true. How long can you choose to hold your breath? I am sure that you would agree that my dog is a creature driven by instinct and yet does she not choose to obey my command? I wouldn't use that fall back. There is such a thing as choice and it is directly built on instinct. Your instinct is to survive and your choices are subservient to that. No doubt we can choose to override that instinct but then where are we? Yes they do. One is just better at it than the other one and we decide which one is better based on how well their choices benefit their personal condition. Of course we are not all using the same brain and all brains are not equal but they all work the same way. They are all subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics. I would say that applies to every religion. Those 'certain individuals' are the group. Anyone who is intentionally being screwed is not part of the group. I am trying to think of some examples of that and surely there are some that look that way. Suicide and self sacrifice to benefit another. Suicide is meant to end one's own suffering and self sacrifice is meant to avoid the suffering of another. Both directly related to an instinct to avoid pain. (edit: which is directly related to the instinct to survive.)Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Certainly without conscious thought of personal reward but personal reward is at the heart of every choice to act.

I am pointing to the common elements that every moral agent uses to make a decision and you are pointing out that not all decisions are the same. Obviously I would agree that not all decisions are the same. Surely you would agree that humans are of a kind and universally share some characteristics. Deviants not withstanding. If there is a common morality then it will be built on these common elements.The most persistent and fundamental of those common elements is the instinct to survive. Any universal morality will necessarily accommodate that instinct. At the same time, every moral code is an effort to influence that instinctive behaviour. So there are elements that every moral code will necessarily have.I am saying that if we are looking for universality then we need to look for similarities as opposed to differences.

The salient point is not that their behaviour should be the same but rather that their behaviour should be judged by the same standard. Any universal standard would need to apply equally to any moral agent. Of course not all moral agents are the same and indeed every one of them is unique and so how do we judge them by the same standard? We do that by finding the common denominators that are possessed by each and every agent.If morality is born from the act of making choices then the moral obligation of any agent is modified by their ability to make choices. The lion can not be found guilty of eating meat on a Friday nor the antelope praised for being a vegetarian. So even though they are not expected to behave in the same way they can be assessed by the same measure.

Well you always have to account for outliers but all that I am trying to say here is that there is such a thing as a human and they are a distinct species. They all have certain qualities that make them a human. For example we could say that every human has a pre frontal cortex and yet there are some humans that do not. That's what I mean by deviants. There are psychopaths with no empathy and there are comatose humans with no moral agency. These are deviants and they do not negate the idea that there can be universal conditions that apply to any moral agent or that there can be universal elements that a functioning moral code must have. It doesn't mean that they all have to be the same but they will all share common elements.I am not trying to force anything. I see that there are universal conditions and I am trying to identify them not to dictate them. In the context of morality, being able to make choices is a universal condition or requirement. Having not only the capacity to make a choice but also the opportunity to act on that choice. Self awareness and a theory of mind are requirements that any moral agent must possess. There are at least a bunch of rules that apply universally. Absolutely. Just like the speed of light and the relationship between energy and mass. Figuring out why we should do something will help us want to do it. Understanding why you shouldn't follow an instinct or desire is the only means you have to resist the impulse. The very essence of your ability to choose.

Of course every moral agent is unique. Not only between species but within as well. The acceptable moral behaviour of a starving man is slightly different from that of a wealthy man. This doesn't mean that they aren't being held to the same standard. That is not how you distill a universal standard. You look for common elements and reduce them to their most fundamental qualities.

Moral agency lies on a spectrum and is not a simple yes or no question. The fact that we can see it developing in other species should give us some insight into what it is and where it comes from.

These are the most fundamental and every choice ever made was an attempt to serve those goals. It seems to me that evaluating how well any choice serves these goals is an objective standard. Even so, I don't see how that condition speaks to the existence or non existence of god or to the penultimate source of that condition.

If we look back to the beginning stages of life here on the planet and the single celled critters. The eukaryotes in particular as they are near the beginning of our line. Little sacs of chemicals that consume resources and reproduce with variation between generations. No choices and no thinking. Just a chemical process of reproducing with variation going on for a long time. All of this taking place within an environment that culls all of those variants that are not aligned with the conditions of the moment. Evolution in a word.And so all of those actions for the first couple of billion years are simply a response to stimuli. A response that leads to their surviving long enough to breed. An accumulation of programmed behaviour that has proven to be beneficial to survival and reproduction. Instinct in a word and all behaviour was purely instinctive. Chemical reactions under the rule of an unbreakable law.Somewhere along the line some ancestor of ours developed the ability to weigh the difference between two courses of action. Not just the ability to choose but the tendency to make the right choice with regard to survival. This is where the ability to choose comes from.Why should this point of evolution be considered anything other than chemical reactions under the rule of law? I don't see any fundamental difference between the first choice and the latest choice beyond the number of inputs that went into the calculation.I am not sure if mixing our fabrics is detrimental to survival but I can see how murder is detrimental. I presume that if god wanted a universal law of morality it would be reinforced by the universal laws of physics. Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Consciousness and memory have emerged and been retained across generations because they are qualities that are, on balance, beneficial to our survival. I would challenge you to find a scientist who disagrees. Looking for the actual spot in the brain where those qualities reside and how they physically work is a different thing. Which one of those later points of evolution was fundamentally different from all of the rest of them? What is it about being consciously aware of making a choice that makes the act of choosing fundamentally different from an instinct? What part of your consciousness is not a chemical reaction? Even though it is all just chemical reactions I am not saying that choice is an illusion. Choice is a chemical reaction and if there is a god then we can be sure that they made us to behave the way that we do. I don't think so. It's just that same old process of evolution trying new things. Not every choice is successful and not every choice is consequential. Morality is being aware that people can make choices and that those choices can be influenced. In every case the goal of that influence is to increase survival and reproduction. I am certainly not claiming to have THE answer. I have a tentative answer that fits with what I feel to be true. Everyone else has to choose their own.

I originally said Those elements are usually not consciously considered but they are the foundation upon which every evaluation of good and bad is built. We justify our decisions in any number of ways but all of those justifications rest on the evaluation of whether or not the action will benefit the actor. The trolley problem for example. The man at the switch is ultimately concerned with how his decision will impact himself. I submit that the difference between the two is that we are aware of one and not aware of the other. Consciousness allows us to add recent data points to the decision matrix but the matrix still works in the same way and still seeks personal benefit and which actions help us to survive. You will notice that in a pyramid all of the upper portions are built upon the lower parts and at no time can they be up there all by themselves.

Obviously I agree with that but the fact that it's true doesn't really help us decide if we needed a god to get here. Rubs up a bit against the Genesis account but doesn't discount a god. Perhaps deism is a product of evolution as well and religion is an attempt to leverage that tendency.

I think that its true because I don't see any other basis that could be used for the evaluation of good and bad. What other basis could there be? I don't think that there are. Kindness, fairness, altruism, self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, love. All of these things exist because they make the actor feel good or feel the least amount of bad. Why do we feel good? It is a chemical response that reinforces behaviour that helps us to survive. This is what I mean when I say that everyone uses the same equipment and make decisions in the same way. The differences between your decisions and mine exist because our experience is different. Different inputs into the same equation.All those people at the trolley switch are looking for the choice that makes them feel the most good or the least bad. That's how we make choices.In the context of this thread, why is it that behaviours like kindness and love etc actually are beneficial to survival? Why is the universe this way and not the opposite where selfishness is the most beneficial? God may be the reason things are this way but how could you tell? God could also be the reason if things were opposite. The only difference would be the nature of our gods.