Morality without god

I would go even further to make the point.
I think it is better to be good for no reward than to be good for a reward.
In fact, it's not a difficult argument to say that being good "for a reward" isn't really being good in the first place. It's simply making a trade or deal. There is no honour in such a way.

I'll admit that it could be.
But I do not see how you can show that it necessarily must be without reading someone else's mind to see their motivation.Do you think it's impossible for someone to do something that another person describe's as "doing something nice just because it's nice?"
If such a thing can happen, then it's possible that the one doing the action in the first place isn't doing the action in order to "be better" or for any kind of reward. It's just other people describing it that way.Just because something can be described as selfish if you ascribe a certain motivation to it... doesn't mean that this was the motivation that actually caused the action in the first place. In the instinctual sense, yes. The same way that fear is a tool that is ultimately intended to force a "fight or flight" response.
However, we can use our intelligence to override our instincts.
We can understand and work around our fear so that we do not "fight or flight" but do something else instead.
We can also understand empathy and compassion such that we do not allow ourselves to be driven directly from them.Or, at least I can Agreed. Or... agreed in the absolute, ultimate sense anyway... which is what I think you're talking about here.Edited by Stile, : Forgetting words is fun and!

Yeah, it's nice when everything is concrete and simple.
I went through a similar kind of thing.
For me, I went from believing in God to believing in good.That is, I liked God because He was good and loving and caring and all that stuff. The idea of a perfect God who understood "being a good person" was a very nice idea.I've just sort of shifted into believing in the ideals themselves without having some sort of God-being there as well.I now like good and loving and caring and all that stuff. And the idea of "being a good person" is still a very nice idea.
I simply shifted my belief in God (who exemplified all the virtues) into the actual virtues themselves.Sure, God had the 10 commandments and all the specific rules. But there was no real reason to follow them unless you chose to follow God.
Now I have "being good" and a bunch of rules that come with that. But there's no real reason to follow the rules of "being good" unless you choose to want to be a good person.This then forced me into defining what "being good" is, and a way to identify if I'm actually doing it or not.The best I've come up with so far is... not understood by myself well enough to give a concise summary of here
But you can read about it... around here... and feel free to ask questions. There's lots of people here that like to talk about this stuff too.Just try to remember... God's commandments were never objective because of them lining up with some map in the stars or something... God's commandments were objective simply because the Bible described them and gave definitions for "being good." They only ever held sway to those who chose to accept the Bible and God.My point is if you find (or even invent) an honest, viable and practical definition of "being good" then your adherence to that standard can be just as objective as God's commandments ever were.But, yeah. In the overall sense, pulling back the curtain and maturing such that you can't go back to the naive ways of "before"... sucks.
...Then you remember that as an adult you can play video games as much as you want and eat lots of chocolate regardless of it being Hallowe'en... that's kinda cool.

What is God's absolute standard?The 10 commandments?
All instructions found in the Bible? (...including Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament?)
The Golden Rule (...love others as you love yourself?)If you are unable to even say what this "absolute standard" actually is... how do you even know it exists in the first place? What objective thing are you comparing it to in order to show that it is, indeed, "standard"?I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you call it an absolute standard if it's not absolute, or standard?

I agree. It's not what we should expect of a wise God.There are two frames of reference when using terms like "moral" or "just."
The first is very human-centric, it's whether or not we find any particular thing moral or not according to our own moral system (whatever that may be).
The second is in an outsider-sense, judging whether or not something is moral when compared against a set of specific regulations.(Of course, my use of the word "wise" can also fall to this same equivocation... I just used your quote as a springboard to further explain my own ideas. Used it like a dirty rag. Hope you don't mind... )For an extreme example, we can consider an Evil God.
This Evil God is actually the one-true-God that actually exists. Evil God's absolute moral standard says that killing babies is moral. Not for some "unknown to us" reason, just for no reason at all, just because He is God therefore He sets the ultimate, moral standard.
Now, it is simple to identify that when people kill babies, they are acting just and moral according to Evil God's absolute standard.
But, it takes a bit of analysis (not too much, in this extreme example) to identify that killing babies is actually unjust according to our own human, personal moral system.I actually don't have a problem in acknowledging an ultimate, absolute moral standard (in the sense of it simply existing). It may very well exist and we have yet to find a way to identify it.My point is that even if it did exist and was completely identifiable, it wouldn't matter. Because what does actually matter is our own, human, personal moral system.Some people tend to think that their personal moral system already is some "absolute standard" from God. Although when asked to describe it, they don't seem to be able to describe anything concrete at all. Just vague comments about it being "in the Bible" or "on our hearts" so we don't have to worry about it. Of course, it's just a rationalization they've come up with so that they don't need to think about it... because it isn't easy to think about. Others, even worse, don't care for even the simplest moral analysis and will accept the absolute standard (whatever it may be...) simply because it is absolute. These people are scary. They do not function on the level of concepts or ideas, simply definitions. They actually think they can be moral through definitional semantics soley by aligning with an ultimate, absolute standard (whatever that might include...).Now, lets say we do understand the concept of being moral, and we find the subject to be important. Maybe we want to be a better person, or even just a good person. Since the important concept of morality is our own personal moral system, it becomes very important to know, specifically, what our own personal moral system is. This involves understanding "good" and "bad" and identifying a way to tell the difference. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is absolutely necessary to get through if the idea of "being good" is important to you.The only absolute moral idea I acknowledge, is to remain open to alternative moral plans that may offer a better way for achieving "being a good person" better than my own current system. If such an idea can be described and understood, then I can grow my current system into a better version. (Also known as the "I can be wrong" clause)The beauty of this system is that the idea of a perfect God who "cannot be wrong" and does know the best moral system "to be good" doesn't even disappear! If such a God exists, we would easily be able to analyze their system, compare it to our own, see that it is, indeed, superior... and make any changes such that our own personal moral system aligns with our understanding of it.
And best of all, we would understand why we aligned with the abosolute moral system instead of just doing it out of some simplistic sense of following orders.

First off, I would like to say that I am smiling the entire time I'm writing this post. The fact that I'm (going to be...) quibbling over such a small detail of morality means that the major stuff is agree upon so it really don't matter either way. But I like details, so here's my thoughts:Good parts from your post I agree with: The part I want to quibble over: I don't think the Golden Rule is the best option for moral systems. I think it's good... but I think it can easily be better.My understanding of the Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you...
Love your neighbour as you love yourself...
Basically... treat other people as you would like to be treated.I think it would be even better (and simpler) if we just treated other people as they want to be treated.Simple example: Gay Marriage.
I'm a guy. I'm not gay. I like girls. I married a girl.
If I wanted to treat others as I wanted to be treated (guys marry girls)... I could easily argue that I should be against gay marriage.
However, if I wanted to treat others as they wanted to be treated... obviously I would be for gay marriage (as long as it's their choice).Of course, the easy way to get around this is to say "I like making my own choice about who I marry" therefore, I should want to treat others the same way and I would be for gay marriage according to the Golden Rule. But this takes a certain level of thought and analysis that some folk just don't seem to be capable of.My point is that the possible confusion can simply be removed by putting in "treat others as they want to be treated" instead of the selfishly-centric general Golden Rule in the first place.

I don't understand.I was comparing a basic understanding of The Golden Rule with an updated version. Your examples are also issues with The Golden Rule, so I don't see the point you're trying to make. But even using the Golden Rule, I like getting blowjobs, so I should give everyone else blowjobs without asking them about it? Again with the Golden Rule, I like getting large checks, so I should give large checks to others all the time?I never said that my replacement rules (or even The Golden Rule itself) should be the only rule.
I just said that my form of it was a more thoughtful and better version for when the rule should be used. Exactly.
I never said The Golden Rule was bad, in fact I said that it was "good." I just said that my proposal was better as it would also remove the confusion for "the idiots."People who aren't idiots don't really need lessons on morality in the first place, they've already shown they're capable of thinking and analyzing.My point is that if you're smart enough to be able to apply The Golden Rule, then it would be even better if you went further and applied my version of it.
I even acknowledged that if you're smart enough to understand the difference between "I like straight marriage" and "I like my personal choice of straight marriage" then you already apply my proposed rule anyway.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)?Of course the answer is it's better to let everyone choose whatever option they like.You don't seem to have added anything other than to suggest that moral systems should include more than a single simple one-liner.
If that's the point you're trying to make, I certainly agree. I just thought it was obvious.

I don't really have a point of contention at this time, I'm just a bit confused and would like to ask some questions in order to try and understand your position.I was attempting to explain how even if God did make Himself freely available to us, and did show us an absolute "moral charter" (somehow...), it's still our choice to follow that charter or not. That is, we can judge the charter as moral or not ourselves (like if it happens to be telling us to kill every baby we see or something equally silly) so therefore it doesn't really matter.Your response seemed to indicate that you kind of agreed with me (the last part of your message) but you also hinted that the presented "moral charter" might have some sort of control over us? I'm just interested in exploring that view. I agree that "maybe in some rare instance a moral case can be made for killing a baby" (although I do not like to type it ).
And in this sense, I understand what you mean by "I don't see it as being absolute."
What I meant was that the absolute moral code would exist (if presented by a God) as the "moral charter" I mentioned above.
In this sense, if the moral charter said "Always good to kill babies, let no baby leave your sight alive, ever" ...then such a statement would be "absolute" in the sense that it's objective and provided to us by God.The fact that you and I don't agree with it is what I'm calling our "personal moral system" (or "choosing with our hearts," if you prefer) which is allowing us to judge the provided moral charter. This doesn't remove the absolute-God-given-objective charter. It's still there, it's still written, it's still from God (albeit an Evil God), it's still objective. I will still burn in Hell (or whatever punishment the Evil God may have for disobedience) for not killing babies. I don't understand how we would "lose the ability to freely choose."
If Evil God came down and showed the absolute, ultimate moral charter that included killing babies as a good thing to do... I could still choose not to do it. I may very well have to deal with Evil God's punishment... but where am I losing my freedom to choose to not kill babies? Are you trying to say that if Evil God actually had such an absolute moral charter, than I would start killing babies and there's no such thing as free-will?Or are you trying to say that if Evil God provides the charter, and I choose not to follow it... then the charter isn't "absolute" anymore and this shows the Evil God to be false?Or are you simply saying that the existance of free-will alone simply eliminates the possibility of an absolute moral charter right off the bat? Even if it is "given straight from the hands of God Himself"? ...I think this is what you're saying, but the "absolute moral charter" (in my example, anyway) would still exist. It doesn't get eliminated, Evil God still exists, His moral charter still exists, His punishments/rewards still exist. They're just useless (as I said initially).

Why is that?
This is exactly why I proposed the example of an all powerful (Evil) God who advocates killing babies in every and all circumstances.
Feel free to add in that we have absolute knowledge about this God, and that He really does decree that killing babies whenever you see one is always a good thing to do.
How can this be seen as "in our best interest" to adhere to it?
I think we both find the idea of killing babies to be rather horrible. It's also pretty clear that the human race would go extinct in a generation as well...If we have the opportunity to reject such a system, either with our hearts or our brains... why would you think it would be best to adhere to it?My point is simply to show that we always choose "with our hearts."
Whether it's this Evil God, or the God-of-the-Bible-that-GDR-believes-in. One may be quite a bit more palatable than the other, even to the point of giving reason to trust in His decisions for difficult to understand situations. However, I still think we're choosing "with our hearts" given the information we know about (whichever) God.I don't think it's ever a morally good idea to simply follow an all-powerful God's plan just because He's all-powerful (or all-knowing, or both). That's the point of the baby-killing example. That, I certainly agree with.
It's just that the beginning of your post (my first quote here) seems to me to say that you think it's best to follow an all-powerful/all-knowing God regardless of your heart. Then at the end (my last quote here) says it's "all about the heart."
I suppose I don't understand how you're saying that following an all-powerful/all-knowing God (even giving that we are also all-knowing) is equal to "following our hearts," when we don't even know anything about what our hearts would be following...To me, knowledge and morality are separate things.
Two men can have the same level of knowledge, one may want to use that knowledge for good things, the other for bad things.
Two Gods (or beings) can have absolute knowledge and/or absolute power. One may want to use their gifts for good things, the other for bad things.You seem to be saying that knowledge leads one to act morally good? Therefore, if one has absolute knowledge, then they will also be absolutely benevolent as a by-product from that knowledge?
If so, are you able to describe why you think such a link should be assumed?

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.

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...)

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.

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

So, let me get this straight... we have a simple example about ice-cream, and your explanation to make it "clearer" is to change it into a philosophical issue over an appreciation of general, overall freedom?I certainly understand how it makes sense, and I agree that it's really the same thing.
I just don't think that's "clearer" at all.I think it's much simpler to understand "treat others the way they want to be treated."
This gets the point across very quickly that the right thing to do is to let other people choose their own ice-cream.To say "treat others the way you want to be treated, and here we're talking about freedom of choice, so therefore we should respect the free choice of others..." just seems so much longer.
This takes a bit of a round-about way to get around to showing that the right thing to do is to let other people choose their own ice-cream.Maybe you think that the round-about way is "clearer" and if so... um... okay.
But my phrasing just seems so much clearer and simpler to me. Especially for this sort of every-day, basic scenario. I'm not really concerned with personal motivations here. I'm just talking about getting the point across to other people. For me, if we want to explain something to others, it's best to keep it as simple and short as possible. (KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid... I apologize for the insult, I didn't invent the acronym, but the idea of it is sound when attempting to do something for other people... be it an explanation or building a piece of equipment)