Morality without God

buz,You just revealed yourself in this line. I am glad you have the strong religious beliefs you do.lfen

Well, you can do whatever you like, I guess.But if your pleasure means harming us and ours, we'll probably get together and kill you.Why should you follow morals in the world where morals are social custom? Well, you like being a part of society, right?

I am still puzzled by how an argument can be made that those without Gods have no reason to act morally, and those with Gods have morality.All you mentioned above are commands that one must follow, and not morality which is a feeling of right and wrong (or better/worse) given an action/situation.For example, I feel that killing another is generally not going to give a positive result for me, and it is certainly not cool to kill someone for no reason but pleasure and then ask them not to kill me.There are specific situations in which it may be necessary, even if it is still a distasteful act, and there may be situations in which it is not necessary but quite appealing. In the first case I may kill someone, but in the latter I won't because of more logical concerns... rather than emotional.Thus I have decided following my logic is a better guide (produces better longterm results) than following pure desires with respect to killing.It is complex, but can be extended to other actions as well. Personal assessments, based on taste and logic.Those that follow Gods (and religious texts) have no appeal to either emotions nor logic, outside whichever guides them to the action of following that God. For once followed, all other actions are amoral. That is the WHOLE of theist morality.And I don't see how this can be challenged.If God were to say to you, and you know it is God speaking, that you must kill your wife and kids, you will do so correct? If he says he wants you to do it and enjoy it, you will strive your best to do so, right?If Christ came down for his 1000 year rule and pronounced that those who are to be saved must show their obedience, rather than defying God, by having sex with their nearest same sex relative or neighbor, and that would be the rule from now on since there will be no more death and God wants no more procreation... you would do this right?It does not matter that it seems improbable that God would do this, but it is not impossible as none can understand all motives of God. Right now such things are verbotten, but it does not have to remain that way.If God asked such things of you, would you not perform them?In that case, where is your morality? Or more appropriately, WHAT is your morality?And if you would defy him at that point, why and how would you then be any different than agnostics and atheists (or for your case anyone nonXian) who have feelings of what is right or wrong but have decided your God (whether it exists or not) is not getting them correct?Personally I have no fear of your God's vengeance any more than any other God, which by the way you may have to face as well... equal odds as far as I can tell. It certainly doesn't bug me other than when people on this planet right now seek my blood in what they think is his word.All I know is that I have pretty much chosen my own ethic, and so I have a morality. As far as I can tell you have none, save to obey.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-14-2004 08:14 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If the only reason for not doing something is that it is against God's morality what does that say about the theist? Surely there are other reasons. For example I don't tend to torture passers-by because it isn't very nice to cause pain to another individual. I don't want to cause hurt, pain or upset to other people. it's not nice when it happens to you so why should it be OK if you do it to someone else. If you blindly follow the rules laid down by God without understanding why they are there, you are no better than the psychopath who refrains from killing because it's against the rules of society.There is such a thing as fellow-feeling and this evolved to enable groups of individuals to work together for the benefit of all. Groups had a better chance of survival than isolated individuals. Humans lack strength compared to the various predators which were around, so brute strength wouldn't win through. It was the development of intelligence which allowed weak humans to overcome stronger predators by banding together to reach a common goal i.e. the demise of the threatening predator. To remain part of that group humans behave in a certain way. The development of empathy reinforces those behaviours.Incidentally, I'm a Christian, but I don't do nasty things, not because God tells me not to, but because I know how I would feel if it was done to me and I wouldn't like it. That doesn't depend one bit on a belief in God. OK, so it's an added extra that God will give me Brownie points for not doing these things, but I don't refrain from them just to get the Brownie points - that's a rather selfish idea, is it not?

quote:

---

However I will not be caught and no retaliation will ever be taken against me. Is there any reason for me not do hurt this other person?

---

Are you saying that the only reason you don't do wrong is you are afraid you will be punished for it, by God if not by your fellow humans? What kind of morality is that?I suspect that you refrain from doing wrong not because of fear of punishement, but because you would feel bad if you did, and you feel good when you do right. Why do you think others don't share these feelings?

So far, most replies to my question have not really answered the question. Almost all of them again make an appeal to punishment by society if the immoral act is committed.
For example,jar says: And what if you are totally certain you will not get caught? What difference does it make to someone who will potentially harm me if I have or have not harmed another? Why would it increase the odds of something bad happening to me? It doesn't.Asgara says: And I am asking, what if there was no chance of fellow man finding out about your behavior? Why shouldn't you do an immoral act of harm to another?Coragyps says: Sometimes it feels really nice to commit an immoral act, doesn't it??Leapfrog says, Again, lets say that no one will ever find out about this. You will not get together and kill me because you don't know about it. I will still be an accepted member of society. Why should I not commit this act?Holmes gave a more detailed response, but he again appealed to the fear of retaliation. What if I was sure that were would be no retaliation from society? Lets say you kill someone and rob thier house. That is a positive result for you. Why is it not cool to kill and them ask not to be killed? Who defines what is cool or not? Society? Who cares about what society thinks, if society will enver find out? Logically, murder may be a very beneficial thing for you to do.Trixie says, This simply tells me WHERE our moral feelings came from, not WHY I should follow them. We are no longer a small tribe trying to survive, my harming another will have no impact on my own survival. Why should you care what others feel? Why does it matter if you would not like it if done to you? It isn't being done to you. You are doing it to another. Why should I be nice if no one will relatiate agaisnt me? Everyone else has appealed to the fear of punishment. Are you saying there is another reason not to do bad things? Please tell me what it is! So we should not do something because it makes us feel bad? Is that the only reason? Our consience will give us guilty feelings? Well, consciences can be dulled, and a lot more happy feelings can be obtained that far outweigh the bad feelings of the conscience.Ifen had some good points - that religion uses systems of punishments to discourage wrongdoing. But I am asking those athiests who don't beleive in any God or religion, the evolutionists who believe we are simply animated matter that evolved into what we are today, why should I refrain from acts that will harm other people but bring me pleasure and benefit if there is no one who will keep me responsible? Society will not punish me (it won't find out), God will not punish me (he doesn't exist), the pleasure outweighs the guilt, why shouldn't I do it?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

What you are describing does happen. These people are called sociopaths. They have no idea that others have feelings, they do what they want solely because they want to. They are incapable of empathic feelings.This has nothing to do with religion, it is a malfunctioning brain.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Well, I guess I am a very immoral person. I'm going to go out now to get a can of gas and lite up my neighbor's dog. It should be fun to watch a "hot dog" running around.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

So we should not do something because it makes us feel bad? Is that the only reason? Our consience will give us guilty feelings? Well, consciences can be dulled, and a lot more happy feelings can be obtained that far outweigh the bad feelings of the conscience.

---

And this is a problem that no religion, including any sect of Christianity, has solved. Sociopaths have always existed, in every society, even those that are supposedly based on "Christian principles".

There are people like that, folk that believe they will never get caught, are certain they will never get caught.Let's look at such a person within a non-GOD based moral system.Eightfold Path1. Right Knowledge
* Understand the Four Noble Truths
2. Right Thinking
* Decide to set a life on the correct path
3. Right Speech
* Don't lie
* Don't criticize others unjustly
* Don't use harsh language
* Don't gossip
4. Right Conduct
* Follow the Five Precepts
5. Right Livelihood
* Earn a living that does not harm living things
6. Right Effort
* Conquer all evil thoughts
* Strive to maintain good thoughts
7. Right Mindfulness
* Become intensely aware of all the states in body, feeling, and mind.
8. Right Concentration
* Deep meditation to lead to a higher state of consciousness (enlightenment)As in any other moral system, a person such as you describe would be aberrant. It would be no different under a GOD based moral system. If the person is convinced he or she will never be found out, there is no disincentive to preclude the behaviour.A good example is Adolf Hitler. He was a good Christian and a truly evil person. But in the end, the things he thought he would get away with were found out. It usually works that way.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Somehow I have a feeling they're going to pull a "no true scotsman" on this one.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

But they can't escape the obvious dilemma that holmes, I believe, raised: if it is moral to do what God wants and immoral to do what God doesn't want, then what do you do about someone who is convinced that God wants them to do despicable things?Edited to give credit to the proper person. And to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-14-2004 03:45 PM

Since fear of retaliation had been mentioned already, I was not appealing to that at all. If you were sure there would be no retaliation from society you could still find behaviors (let's use killing as an example from now on) do not give a positive result.For example, you may find that killing someone does not actually solve the problem you are having. Or that it would add to psychological complications for yourself, if you find such things distasteful or grotesque, such that it has a greater cost to the few psychological benefits you can gain.Remember that when one is functioning as a hedonist, that does not suddenly make every act pleasurable. Why did you have to kill someone to rob their house? And why is that a positive result for me? If you want to submit a hypothetical, then I guess I can deal with it as a hypothetical, but personally I find death wasteful and grotesque, so I am not sure why my killing someone would be a positive at all. It is inconsistent, which to MY mind is uncool. You are right that I don't have to worry about society. I am worrying about me and I find inconsistency troubling.That said people do have to worry about society as a practicality. This is not to mention that people tend to be "socialized" by having contact with other members of society.You can suddenly start saying you won't accept a certain answer, but that doesn't make it less true. That is right, and I have already addressed this. If it is very beneficial then I would probably do so, even in circumstances where I would find it distasteful or grotesque.Are you trying to say you would not? Or that theists would not?What about wars? Or... well I'll get to that in a minute... If you set up the hypothetical such that it would bring you pleasure (personal taste) and you would benefit from it (personal cost/benefit) and society would not punish you (social sanctions) then I see no reason why you shouldn't kill someone.But this seems like a very odd question. Am I supposed to feel awkward by saying you should, given those conditions? Because killing is somehow "wrong" objectively?Well it isn't to me... and it isn't to YOU either.My guess is you are for killing others when there is a war, or maybe for capital punishment, which usually satisfies all conditions above. So then, if this is true, you and I are already very much alike.But you go further as a theist. If God told me to kill someone and it did not meet those conditions for me, then I would say no. But you would, right?Indeed, if God instructed you to kill innocent babies at random and eat them for breakfast as you could, you would do so, right?If yes, then where is the morality regarding killing? Mine has set conditions which takes into account realities of the act I would commit on myself and on others, and they remain consistent... yours does not.You do not judge killing wrong at all, you simply judge disobeying God as wrong and God says not to kill.Your morality regarding any act can change at the flip of a switch.Unless you would defy your God at such an "outrageous" request? Who are YOU to judge God's requests if you are a theist?We have seen the result of such quandaries in the string of infanticides and child murders by parents across the Bible belt over the last few years.So I have already met your hypothetical. Of course when you set it at all of my conditions being filled I will say yes. So will you.At least mine I know is internally consistent with regard to acts. When I say it is wrong (or "worse", I am not a right/wrong ethicist) to kill in this situation it will stand true. You will flit and float on any particular act, just as your God demands, right?It is my contention that the only people with moralities and ethics are athiests, agnostics, and theists whose deities do not bother setting guidelines for behavior.Theists whose deities tell them what to do are merely obedient, not moral, agents.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-14-2004 03:44 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, but we'll get you next time.But if you're not motivated by a desire to do the right thing, no moral platitude I could advance, no moral bullshit I could spin, is going to convince you not to do bad things.You expect me to believe, though, that even though you're (for example) a selfish ass who never thinks about the welfare of others, somehow a bunch of stories about a "Superman in the Sky who's gonna get you when you die" are going to keep you in line?Please. Yes, there's nothing in atheism to keep you from doing bad things except habit and the fear of punishment. I don't see how that's different from any other religion. Then, like any religious person who finds themselves in that position, you'd probably do whatever the hell you wanted. In the case of Christianity you'd probably convince yourself you were doing God's work, and that the lack of retribution from society was God's tacit permission.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-14-2004 04:06 PM

Before you ask the question of why morals should be followed if there is n God, you should answer the question of why morals should be followed if there is a God.That will show what sort of answer you will accept and also whether the existence of a God is relevant to such an answer.You also might like to look into the book _Godless Morality_ by Richard Holloway.