Godless morality

[Ihateusernames]

The word “improvement” is intrinsically making the moral judgment that the outcome is "better" than what used to be, instead of just “different”. While you might say that the “different” is more tolerable to you and those like you therefore it is “better”, that’s rather fallaciously based as it turns morals into purely opinion based, which everyone other than strict ethical nihilists disagree with in regards to the extreme cases of murder, rape, torture…etc.

Also, I believe the first part of your paragraph’s admittance of the fact that there is no way to quantify something’s goodness kinda kills your argument as well. How is it exactly logical to say something is “improved” if you admit there is no way of telling something’s goodness?

I don't think you've got it quite right. I am quite prepared to accept that in many ways a nihilistic approach is sound, that does not make it in any way inappropriate, on a more human level, to judge an action as "better" or "worse," based on its expected consequences...and the basis for this argument is more than opinions; just because people have different opinions doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. As (I assume) an atheist, you should be well aware of that principle.
  Thats what it comes down to. Whose opinions are right? Thats why we argue, why we rationalize, we attempt to improve our imperfect models of right and wrong.

  I'm sorry, but to say something is less valid than something else, there must be a unit of measurement. It is like I said before, if you ask me how tall I am and everyone has their own opinion of how big an inch is instead of a unified unit, my answer is going to be meaningless to you.

Likewise, If you are going to say that some opinions are more "valid" than others based purely on your own personal preference instead of some more objective unit, then it carries as much weight as a Nazi saying that their opinions are "valid" leaving you at a stalemate.  I dont think it would be disingenuous to condense your argument this statement: "My own opinions are valid because my goals are valid, and my goals are valid because my opinions on 'right' and 'wrong' are valid".  Its sounds suspiciously like the atheist saying "there is no god because I say there is no god" or the christian saying "Christianity is true because Christianity is true."  All three of these statements are equally as circular and logically fallacious.

Yeah, same as before, not all opinions are equal- but you will ask, why might I judge mine to be more valid than someone elses, say a nazi? Well, the only way to do it satisfactorily would be to invision a hypothetical intelligent but ignorant and neutral person who responds only to reason, and sell our ideas to him. The fact that there is no such person leaves us in an unsatisfying position....but this is typical of what is ultimately only an abstract cultural construct. Thats why the nihilistic approach is so appealing. Except that the nihilistic approach seems very ineffective on a practical level.

Which is exactly why I personally think that a theistic system of morality could be considered a sound deductive argument, assuming there is a God.  To be God, wouldn't God necessarily possess the ability to fulfill that role?  And if a perfect being that I am quite comfortable admitting is greater than me makes a moral judgment, I really don't see the reason to second guess them.

If a perfect being says "I'm right because I am"  It is obviously circular logic, but due to the premise of "perfect" circular logic is no longer fallacious.  The only reason we call circular logic fallacious during our discussions is because we recognize our human imperfection.

I'm struggling to see the connection back to original point though. You were objecting to something about humanism; so perhaps we could get back to humanism...what exactly is objectionable about it?

It connects quite well. humanism, at its core, commits the same fallacy that you have been committing all along.  Basically, Humanism is an opinion.  What makes that opinion 'better' or 'more valid' than someone who disagrees if there is no way of establishing something's 'goodness' rating off anything other than opinion.  So basically, although we might not be using the word humanism as much right now, the same issues apply.

-Ihateusernames

[AlP]

I think morality, in the general sense, is simply a code of conduct. It comes from the Latin which means "norms", "customs", "virtues" or "values" according to Wikipedia.
   

You do realize that this absolutely supports the position that if the culture condones an action it therefore is moral. If the moral option is based on what culture deems is moral, then at one point in time having slaves was the moral thing to do, killing jews was the moral thing to do, and in fact if you currently live in certain African tribes you almost have to admit that sewing up the genitals of women is acctually moral, as the majority of the others in your tribe (ie: your culture) believe that it is.

I think to say a definition of morality supports the view that owning slaves or killing Jews is moral is a stretch. But this gets to the heart of one of my issues with trivialized morality. Here's an example. I live in America. Americans enjoy a high standard of living, a standard of living that would be impossible without the exploitation of people living in countries on the other side of the trade deficit. Their labor buys less value than my labor. This disgusts me, not because it's "wrong" but because people are being exploited right now and I am partly responsible. This doesn't seem to be the prevailing view in America. Apparently, by the magic of capitalist dogma, it's okay. I might not be living in a country that enslaves Africans or murders Jews but I'm not naive enough to believe that this kind of thing isn't still happening around me.

I’m sorry, I think the idea morals are just what society says basically makes morals meaningless, as society’s only ‘official’ statements are laws, and a lot of laws are just shitty and immoral. But if society creates morals, how can I even say what the society created (a law) is not moral as that implies that the object that creates what is moral is immoral? It doesn’t make logical sense. It is circular logic to think that society creates morals, unless you devalue morals into solely personal opinion, which basically strips the word “moral” of any use. Why not just say “legal” then?

I think you argued that your idea of morality is meaningless? I'm trying to decipher the argument. I think the problem might be that you rely on "a lot of laws are immoral" as a premise and then go on to use it to justify the premise being meaningless.

Why does law have any more logical force than morality? If you are willing to break whatever moral rules you like to get what you want, why not also the law?
   

Is not this ‘cynical morality’ basically what you are saying what you didn’t even understand before?

I was asking a question. I was curious as to why you thought laws had more logical force than morality.

Isn’t the ‘cynical morality’ what ‘morality’ actually boils down to? You don’t like it so you live above it, but I’m sorry you may live with pride as a primary moral guide, but this does nothing to suggest that living that way is ‘better’ than just living on or even below the line of what you term ‘cynical morality’. Your morality and the murderer’s is ‘different’ but nothing has yet been said to suggest it is ‘better’.

I think by 'cynical morality' I was describing morality that is justified by the consequences of not following it, or by appeal to prudence. I think I already said that an unqualified use of 'should' is logically meaningless and likewise 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Better' in this sense means 'more right'. Yes I agree that my morality cannot  logically be argued to be better than 'cynical morality'. But I am confident that in reality people, both myself and others, will appreciate the difference for real reasons. For example, the woman I don't take advantage of while she is drunk will appreciate the difference and I will appreciate not feeling the shame of having caused harm.

I’m sorry, the whole concept of morality is black and white. Law of non-contradiction and all that. You might have some personal aversion to black and white thinking, however it does happen sometimes. Something either is moral to do, or it isn’t, or there is no morality and its neither moral or immoral. These are the only options. Murder is either wrong and evil, or it isn‘t wrong and evil. It can’t be wrong and evil for some people, and not wrong and evil for some. That just doesn’t make logical sense.

I think that's a false dichotomy. The reality of the way people treat each other is extremely complicated. Boolean logic is a poor model.

It really sounds like you have decided ethical nihilism is correct, and yet don’t like the ramifications of it so you just choose to live above what some would. That doesn’t do much to dissuade someone from indulging in less than desirable activities if they so desire, which is what the concept of morals applies to.

Actually I did for a while adopt nihilism. For me the ramifications were that it was inconsistent with reality. People, myself as a nihilist included, feel responsible for what they have done, feel shame, empathy, happiness, fear and all kinds of very real things. These real things affect how we treat each other. I call it morality. If it can't be reduced to logic then the model is wrong, not reality.

Interesting discussion... I'll try and get to the rest later.

[Ihateusernames]

I think to say a definition of morality supports the view that owning slaves or killing Jews is moral is a stretch. But this gets to the heart of one of my issues with trivialized morality. Here's an example. I live in America. Americans enjoy a high standard of living, a standard of living that would be impossible without the exploitation of people living in countries on the other side of the trade deficit. Their labor buys less value than my labor. This disgusts me, not because it's "wrong" but because people are being exploited right now and I am partly responsible. This doesn't seem to be the prevailing view in America. Apparently, by the magic of capitalist dogma, it's okay. I might not be living in a country that enslaves Africans or murders Jews but I'm not naive enough to believe that this kind of thing isn't still happening around me.

Isn't assuming that exploiting people is wrong, as you are doing, absolutely making the moral judgment that exploiting people is objectively 'wrong'?  I don't see why you would feel vindicated in your outraged at exploitation if there isn't something inherently 'wrong' in it--in fact I think you, self admittedly in the minority of Americans, would be doing something immoral to question what society thinks if morals are derived from society. after all, aren't morals derived from what society thinks?  I think basing morality on societal mores, personal opinion, or anything else subjective basically renders them useless philosophically speaking.  Non-philosophically speaking, obviously they have use... but non-philosophically speaking the Bible, Koran, Vedas...etc all have emotional uses.  They do make a crapload of people feel more secure and happy, don't they?

It really sounds like you recognize that philosophically speaking ethical nihilism is the only outcome of atheism, but you personally choose to live a life of attempted 'goodness' whatever that means.  I suppose if you are comfortable knowingly misleading yourself to achieve some sort of peace, who am I to try to take that away, but for me it seems ludicrous as well as having no weight in spurring others on to a 'moral' life.

I’m sorry, I think the idea morals are just what society says basically makes morals meaningless, as society’s only ‘official’ statements are laws, and a lot of laws are just shitty and immoral. But if society creates morals, how can I even say what the society created (a law) is not moral as that implies that the object that creates what is moral is immoral? It doesn’t make logical sense. It is circular logic to think that society creates morals, unless you devalue morals into solely personal opinion, which basically strips the word “moral” of any use. Why not just say “legal” then?

I think you argued that your idea of morality is meaningless? I'm trying to decipher the argument. I think the problem might be that you rely on "a lot of laws are immoral" as a premise and then go on to use it to justify the premise being meaningless.

I'm sorry I may not have been clear enough.  Let me go all acadmic-ish: : )

2.A 'moral' code, to be considered authoritative, must be devoid of anything 'immoral'.
3.The legal code is society's code of morality (Right and wrong are basically synonyms for legal and illegal in the assumption that morals come from society)
4.The legal code is not devoid of anything immoral
5.Authoritative morals can not be derived from societal consensus

I was trying to show that society's opinions on morality is lacking so basing your opinion on society's opinion doesn't make much sense.  Also, practically speaking when talking about extremes it seems to me everyone considers (at least unwarranted) torture and murder as universally 'wrong' even if some culture someplace else in the world doesn't agree.  Assuming that "my morals are better than yours" in the extreme case is utilizing a concept of authoritative morals that can not be atheistically based and yet we all do it.

I was asking a question. I was curious as to why you thought laws had more logical force than morality.

Ah, pardon my before comments then. : )

Isn’t the ‘cynical morality’ what ‘morality’ actually boils down to? You don’t like it so you live above it, but I’m sorry you may live with pride as a primary moral guide, but this does nothing to suggest that living that way is ‘better’ than just living on or even below the line of what you term ‘cynical morality’. Your morality and the murderer’s is ‘different’ but nothing has yet been said to suggest it is ‘better’.

I think by 'cynical morality' I was describing morality that is justified by the consequences of not following it, or by appeal to prudence. I think I already said that an unqualified use of 'should' is logically meaningless and likewise 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Better' in this sense means 'more right'. Yes I agree that my morality cannot  logically be argued to be better than 'cynical morality'. But I am confident that in reality people, both myself and others, will appreciate the difference for real reasons. For example, the woman I don't take advantage of while she is drunk will appreciate the difference and I will appreciate not feeling the shame of having caused harm.

If you really understand it can't logically be argued to be "better than 'cynical morality'" then do you really condemn someone who does horrible stuff based only on her cynical morality?  I find it hard to believe you don't mentally despise someone who does evil-yet-technically-not-illegal stuff.  And if you do despise them, you realize your despising is based purely on emotion and not on logic, which is akin to what some religious people do to non-religious people.  Is it really equally as acceptable for a religious person to despise an atheist for being an atheist, after all, they don't need to logically prove that the atheist is a bad, they can base their assumptions on their emotional desire, can't they?

I’m sorry, the whole concept of morality is black and white. Law of non-contradiction and all that. You might have some personal aversion to black and white thinking, however it does happen sometimes. Something either is moral to do, or it isn’t, or there is no morality and its neither moral or immoral. These are the only options. Murder is either wrong and evil, or it isn‘t wrong and evil. It can’t be wrong and evil for some people, and not wrong and evil for some. That just doesn’t make logical sense.

I think that's a false dichotomy. The reality of the way people treat each other is extremely complicated. Boolean logic is a poor model.

Is it really a false dichotomy?  The way people treat each other is extremely complicated, I agree, but people also have the ability to do immoral things making the complication possible while still leaving the actual state of things in a black and white morality.  If morality is not black and white, then whats the point of it?  If I'm really really angry at someone, is it only 80% wrong to kill them? 90%? I think the dichotomy of it is either 100% wrong, or 0% wrong is not a false one.  You can't say "aww you did something wrong, but it wasn't wrong." That doesn't make sense to me.

It really sounds like you have decided ethical nihilism is correct, and yet don’t like the ramifications of it so you just choose to live above what some would. That doesn’t do much to dissuade someone from indulging in less than desirable activities if they so desire, which is what the concept of morals applies to.

Actually I did for a while adopt nihilism. For me the ramifications were that it was inconsistent with reality. People, myself as a nihilist included, feel responsible for what they have done, feel shame, empathy, happiness, fear and all kinds of very real things. These real things affect how we treat each other. I call it morality. If it can't be reduced to logic then the model is wrong, not reality.

I find this hard to accept.  I knew a lot of really horrible people in my life, and I can honestly say they didn't feel shame or empathy for/to those they abused.  Does that then make it not 'wrong' for them to abuse others, as to them they don't feel bad?  I just can't accept morals based on feeling, as feeling is so easily changed.  Take some steroids and assuming you get some roid rage, you'll probably change your opinion on what is 'right' and 'wrong' does that mean abuse has somehow turned 'not wrong' for you?  It doesn't make sense to have morals that aren't based on something solid.  Either they exist, and are solid, or they don't.  I don't think that's a false dichotomy.

Interesting discussion... I'll try and get to the rest later.

I agree whole heatedly.  I am enjoying our discourse greatly, and don't worry about if you miss something, that is just the way conversations normally go (that and my long post was bordering on tl;dr so I don't mind : D! ).  : P  Its the beauty of message boards--responses can always wait and I'm not impatient at all! ^_^  Also if you don't feel something is going anywhere (I feel like I may be starting to repeat myself which normally leads me to the thought that a break should be taken before continuing else we both subconciously dig our heels in and create useless discourse!) then I dont mind if you just skip that portion of my post in your reply.  meh.. basically I'm trying to say I'm easy going so no worries! ^_^

-Ihateusernames

[AlP]

I was going to go through this point by point and I can if you like. I wanted to go in a slightly different direction...

I can think of two kinds of ethical nihilist, who I will call the philosophical nihilist and the practicing nihilist. The distinction is that the philosophical nihilist ponders morality, realizes he can't justify right and wrong logically but continues to behave like a regular member of society. That is he goes through the motions of acting morally. The practicing nihilist actually behaves differently, doing things that others consider right or wrong, without regard for other people's judgments. This is a false dichotomy of course. For example there is a spectrum lying between the two extreme types.

The philosophical nihilist is really only of academic interest. As far as others are concerned, and largely as far as the nihilist is concerned, his nihilism is irrelevant.

The practicing nihilist does things that make his nihilism relevant. I'm trying to think why he would be that way. The first idea I had was that he does not consider himself to be responsible for his actions. This is absurd though. He would be completely dysfunctional. I think it's more likely that he considers himself responsible for his actions but doesn't think that they are right or wrong, doesn't care that others do and doesn't care how he treats other people. I'm not going to defend this guy; he can look after himself.

If I am a nihilist then, firstly, I am a philosophical nihilist and, secondly, it is of no importance to me whatsoever. What is important to me is basing morality on things that are real. I am responsible for everything I have ever done. Whenever I do something, I become responsible for it. Morality, for me, is more about the actions I do and do not want to be responsible for, or as I said earlier, my pride. While I can't justify logically why it is wrong to cause harm, I do know that I don't want to have it on my permanent record.

Edit: spelling and grammar. I probably made it worse though!

[Ihateusernames]

I was going to go through this point by point and I can if you like. I wanted to go in a slightly different direction...

I like your direction and accept your offer! : )

I can think of two kinds of ethical nihilist, who I will call the philosophical nihilist and the practicing nihilist. The distinction is that the philosophical nihilist ponders morality, realizes he can't justify right and wrong logically but continues to behave like a regular member of society. That is he goes through the motions of acting morally. The practicing nihilist actually behaves differently, doing things that others consider right or wrong, without regard for other people's judgments. This is a false dichotomy of course. For example there is a spectrum lying between the two extreme types.

The philosophical nihilist is really only of academic interest. As far as others are concerned, and largely as far as the nihilist is concerned, his nihilism is irrelevant.

The practicing nihilist does things that make his nihilism relevant. I'm trying to think why he would be that way. The first idea I had was that he does not consider himself to be responsible for his actions. This is absurd though. He would be completely dysfunctional. I think it's more likely that he considers himself responsible for his actions but doesn't think that they are right or wrong, doesn't care that others do and doesn't care how he treats other people. I'm not going to defend this guy; he can look after himself.

If I am a nihilist then, firstly, I am a philosophical nihilist and, secondly, it is of no importance to me whatsoever. What is important to me is basing morality on things that are real. I am responsible for everything I have ever done. Whenever I do something, I become responsible for it. Morality, for me, is more about the actions I do and do not want to be responsible for, or as I said earlier, my pride. While I can't justify logically why it is wrong to cause harm, I do know that I don't want to have it on my permanent record.

Edit: spelling and grammar. I probably made it worse though!

I quite enjoyed your post and I agree with all of it.  

The issue for me is that if nihilism is true, as a philosophic nihilist claims, then why does reality seem so opposite to the logic the philosophic nihilist holds?  I've always lived by the idea that if something philosophic doesn't fit reality then it is the concept that is somehow flawed, however whenever I place nihilism into the before mentioned idea while maintaining logical requirements it always spits out 'false'.  This along with the fact that no other atheistic theory of morals really make any sense, are the cause of my comments about me being caught somewhere between theism (which can explain morality) and nihilism.

And on a practical level, I can almost assure you that you don't live up to your desired morality all the time as I know I sure don't, and have never met someone who does consistently.  What of the 'evil' (harm to others, if we want to define it as that) that was done?  Does it just disappear as time passes? can you remedy it by being extra 'good' tomorrow? I just can't see how being nice to someone can somehow counteract any evil done in the past.  Maybe it will pacify the person relationally speaking, but it can't erase the old action completely... can it?  I haven't ever seen it done...

But as I watch the progression of my thoughts in this post it seems to be slowly swirly back into the question of objective morality.  I can philosophically support nihilism, however practically I can't.  I can practically support theism, and honestly with recent cosmological advances (I dont know if your a geek like me but yay dark matter being 'captured' buweahaha, eh?) theistic (or at least deistic) arguments have gained considerable strength.

-Ihateusernames

PS:  I've always considered online forums as somewhere between spoken and written English... thus proper grammar is totally not required... and I revel in the freedom from the grammar Nazi's it allows! ; )

[Renegnicat]

I'm going to try to be as clear as I can as I write this. key words are bolded for emphasis.

Here is my summation of what I believe you are saying(correct me if I am wrong):
You seem to be expressing that there is no such thing as inherent "good"/"evil"/"wrong"/"right".
Some people claim that there belief is "good/right" and other's beliefs are "evil/wrong".

But without an objective measuring stick to measure "goodness", there is no way to tell who is correct, and, thus no measuring stick, therefore, no morality.

I have a few thoughts that come to mind on this:
1) You seem to be interested in finding something(morality) that, by your own argument, does not exist.
2) Given this, I am not convinced that "morality", by it's traditional definition of goodness/wrongness/etc, is precisely adequate.

Could it be that you would be satisfied with a logically sound system that clearly shows precisely how one should act? A system of that sort would probably find some way of dividing up all actions into two categories: one that includes "ok" actions, and another that includes "not ok" actions.

From the previous posts, I think it mounts to be pretty clear that such a system can have no perfectly logical foundation. Any criterion that would be chosen to divide the actions would always be unjustified.

However, it seems to me that if we are seeking to look at the "objective" side of thi, then we can only observe one fact: That there are actions and consequences. I am not implying that any of these have any inherent qualities considered good or bad. But we can observe a close consistency between certain actions and certain consequences. Thus, it could be said that if one wants to have a certain consequence, they will need to produce the appropriate action.

Other than that, there probably is no ultimate moral system. But given this observation, it is clear that many systems can be devised that proscribe certain actions for certain results. It is this that gives society it's moral systems, probably. I can only imagine that any society would be a rigid system of structures designed toa llow many people to achieve the conseuences they want with minimal friction with others. There, of course, is nothing inherently good about this, or evil. If you do not want to live in a society, you may enter the wilderness, where it is possible you will die.

My computer is malfunctioning, so time to sign off. Ihateusernames, I think this is more a alidation of your argument than a challenge to it. But I think that it is important to point out that ethical nihilism assumes no structure at al, while, if you look at the fact of consistency between actions and consequences, it is clear that there is much "moral" structure to be had, even if it can't be arbitrarily assigned to be "superior" to any other.

[AlP]

The issue for me is that if nihilism is true, as a philosophic nihilist claims, then why does reality seem so opposite to the logic the philosophic nihilist holds?

Most of society is blindly following rules that they copy from others.

I've always lived by the idea that if something philosophic doesn't fit reality then it is the concept that is somehow flawed, however whenever I place nihilism into the before mentioned idea while maintaining logical requirements it always spits out 'false'.

I don't think it's false. It's just irrelevant. It's what happens when you try to find a deductive logical argument to justify right and wrong without assuming God. The answer is no answer.

This along with the fact that no other atheistic theory of morals really make any sense, are the cause of my comments about me being caught somewhere between theism (which can explain morality) and nihilism.

Out of interest, do you accept responsibility for your actions or do you need a deductive argument to justify it?

And on a practical level, I can almost assure you that you don't live up to your desired morality all the time as I know I sure don't, and have never met someone who does consistently.  What of the 'evil' (harm to others, if we want to define it as that) that was done?  Does it just disappear as time passes? can you remedy it by being extra 'good' tomorrow? I just can't see how being nice to someone can somehow counteract any evil done in the past.  Maybe it will pacify the person relationally speaking, but it can't erase the old action completely... can it?  I haven't ever seen it done...

I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

But as I watch the progression of my thoughts in this post it seems to be slowly swirly back into the question of objective morality.  I can philosophically support nihilism, however practically I can't.  I can practically support theism, and honestly with recent cosmological advances (I dont know if your a geek like me but yay dark matter being 'captured' buweahaha, eh?) theistic (or at least deistic) arguments have gained considerable strength.

I'm skeptical as to whether religion really has a deductive logical argument for morality. I'm pondering the impossibility of diagramming the assertions in the Bible. But even if I'm wrong, you have to accept certain premises, like the existence of God. You might have a reason to believe there is a God. Fair enough. But don't believe in God simply because He gives you a way to justify morality in objective terms!

[Ihateusernames]

Most of society is blindly following rules that they copy from others.

Which is exactly why my HAF worldview is what it is : P

I don't think it's false. It's just irrelevant. It's what happens when you try to find a deductive logical argument to justify right and wrong without assuming God. The answer is no answer.

I used the word "false" because I intended the meaning of "not accurate"  Obviously if nihilism is 'true' there is no such thing as morality, however if the reality of existence is based, say, in a system of theistic morality, it wouldn't be a stretch to say the concept of nihilism is a 'false' concept : P

Out of interest, do you accept responsibility for your actions or do you need a deductive argument to justify it?

Obviously if I am a normal member of society (and I'd wager I am, but who really knows--this is the internet afterall! bwueahah!) I take responsibility for my actions in the practical sense... However there are some actions in life that I'd rather not take responsibility for if I chose to do, (being rather cruel to certain people) and if I assume nihilism it's really, really hard to keep "taking responsibility" for evil actions when there is no law forcing me to.  Currently though, I'd rather assume there is some sort of objective code of morality to reality, as I'd rather like to condemn 'evil' actions of myself and others as more than personal preference.  My next goal is to figuring out exactly what that morality is... ;P

I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

Then what do you say to the murderer/rapist/thief who has turned 'good'.  Can they ever 'redeem' themselves from the evil of their past or do you think the whole concept of "redeeming" oneself, other than just relationally to others, is pointless because of nihilistic thought.  It seems to boil down to the only reason to "be good" is personal preference, or the goal of avoiding punishment.  pretty selfish and crappy reasons if you think about it (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong), as it frees up the person who legally exploits people to do just that--harm people legally for personal gain as personal gain seems to be the only reason to do anything.

I'm skeptical as to whether religion really has a deductive logical argument for morality. I'm pondering the impossibility of diagramming the assertions in the Bible. But even if I'm wrong, you have to accept certain premises, like the existence of God. You might have a reason to believe there is a God. Fair enough. But don't believe in God simply because He gives you a way to justify morality in objective terms!

I personally think that if a case of circumstantial evidence is strong enough, a claim can be made--even in the case of a divine being.  I'm also quite willing to place the widespread concept of morality into the category of +1 point of circumstantial evidence 'for the existence of god' if we are keeping a tally--as I don't think this is intellectually dishonest in the least.

Anyway, People are stupid.  That being said, stupid people, make for stupid ideas.  The stupidest idea I've heard is that people point to the bible and say "Omg, it is a rule book of morality.  Without the bible how can one know morality?!"  It is like a self-created straw man of what the christian is supposedly supporting.  I agree it'd be rather impossible to create a complete diagram of morality using just the bible.  However I also believe that doing that was not even the intent of the bible (human intention or God inspired intention, doesn't really matter how you look at it.) (Also, shouldn't the crapload of the stories of Jesus vs the-people-who-used-"sacred"-scriptures-as-rulebooks-for-morality kinda make it obvious the bible isn't a rulebook?)  The entire point of the bible hinges around the question of objective morality or subjective to me.  If there is objective morality laced into reality, then when we screw up/sin/do evil... whatever..., we ARE doing something inherently wrong and need a sort of 'redemption' else we will forever be in the state of screwed up (which if is inherently wrong, we should try our darnedest to get out of).  

The deductive argument for theistic morality rests in the fact that if there is a god, this god is absolutely 'greater' than humans.  To be greater than someone, it goes to reason that you must be more 'moral'. So, if he is greater in an absolute way, which is what some forms of theism claim, then his opinion's on things can rightfully also be considered 'greater'  or more 'correct' (or good or holy or whatever word you want to use )  If there is a being that I can rightfully claim is absolutely 'greater' to me regarding morality, I can rest assured that what that being requests of me (morally speaking) will be absolute (or objectively) true even if I, a human and lesser being, have second thoughts about it).

Meh, I'm not trying to claim divine command theory, as I would say that if God commanded something egregiously wrong (such as unwarranted murder of someone completely innocent) then that being, by definition, cannot be God.

-Ihateusernames

[AlP]

Obviously if I am a normal member of society (and I'd wager I am, but who really knows--this is the internet afterall! bwueahah!) I take responsibility for my actions in the practical sense... However there are some actions in life that I'd rather not take responsibility for if I chose to do, (being rather cruel to certain people) and if I assume nihilism it's really, really hard to keep "taking responsibility" for evil actions when there is no law forcing me to.  Currently though, I'd rather assume there is some sort of objective code of morality to reality, as I'd rather like to condemn 'evil' actions of myself and others as more than personal preference.  My next goal is to figuring out exactly what that morality is... ;P

Well I think what one is responsible for is largely just what one has done, though whether one also takes the intent of an action into account is also an interesting question. I hold that thoughtful consideration of what you want to be responsible for long term is a workable basis for morality. This isn't a universal basis for morality but it's closer than the whimsical basis implied by nihilism. It applies to theists and atheists alike. One can research much of recorded history and learn about the people who are now famous and infamous. Pick some role models. People haven't changed. It doesn't point to a black and white model for right and wrong but putting everything that we know has happened in perspective, or in other words understanding reality, offers a close second.

I think that once you have done something it cannot be undone. It's historical fact. No amount of 'good' erases 'bad'.

Then what do you say to the murderer/rapist/thief who has turned 'good'.  Can they ever 'redeem' themselves from the evil of their past or do you think the whole concept of "redeeming" oneself, other than just relationally to others, is pointless because of nihilistic thought.  It seems to boil down to the only reason to "be good" is personal preference, or the goal of avoiding punishment.  pretty selfish and crappy reasons if you think about it (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong), as it frees up the person who legally exploits people to do just that--harm people legally for personal gain as personal gain seems to be the only reason to do anything.

I don't think it's pointless because of nihilist thought. I think one cannot change the past. For a rapist that feels guilty, the most they can hope for is forgiveness at an individual level. They will forever have raped. They cannot exchange responsibility for the rape for something else by making amends. Morality is not capitalism.

I also think you're trivializing this thing you call personal preference. The responsibility is personal. The personal choice (or preference) is what makes it one's responsibility. The "personal preference" of an individual to go against the prevailing view of their society can become the stuff of legend. See Oskar Schindler.

I personally think that if a case of circumstantial evidence is strong enough, a claim can be made--even in the case of a divine being.  I'm also quite willing to place the widespread concept of morality into the category of +1 point of circumstantial evidence 'for the existence of god' if we are keeping a tally--as I don't think this is intellectually dishonest in the least.

The deductive argument for theistic morality rests in the fact that if there is a god, this god is absolutely 'greater' than humans.  To be greater than someone, it goes to reason that you must be more 'moral'. So, if he is greater in an absolute way, which is what some forms of theism claim, then his opinion's on things can rightfully also be considered 'greater'  or more 'correct' (or good or holy or whatever word you want to use )  If there is a being that I can rightfully claim is absolutely 'greater' to me regarding morality, I can rest assured that what that being requests of me (morally speaking) will be absolute (or objectively) true even if I, a human and lesser being, have second thoughts about it).

You just switched from a deductive argument to an inductive argument. Why are you holding atheism to the stringency of a deductive argument while theism to the lesser inductive argument?

[Ihateusernames]

Well I think what one is responsible for is largely just what one has done, though whether one also takes the intent of an action into account is also an interesting question. I hold that thoughtful consideration of what you want to be responsible for long term is a workable basis for morality. This isn't a universal basis for morality but it's closer than the whimsical basis implied by nihilism. It applies to theists and atheists alike. One can research much of recorded history and learn about the people who are now famous and infamous. Pick some role models. People haven't changed. It doesn't point to a black and white model for right and wrong but putting everything that we know has happened in perspective, or in other words understanding reality, offers a close second.

So, you really don't mind if people research much of recorded history, become enamored with infamous people, and attempt to be them?  Is that really a valid option?  It seems as your bases for morality is more similar to the statement "everyone does what they want to" than attempting to explain how morality can be considered objective rather than subjective.  If you believe that reality is honestly that everyone just does what they want to, and the group has social constructions, you have chosen subjective morality, yet I'd wager that you still live as if objective morality exists in that when you condemn an evil action as evil(at least I am assuming you believe there is something inherently wrong with things like needless murder or rape other than social construct, although you very well might not.)

I also think you're trivializing this thing you call personal preference. The responsibility is personal. The personal choice (or preference) is what makes it one's responsibility. The "personal preference" of an individual to go against the prevailing view of their society can become the stuff of legend. See Oskar Schindler.

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean by trivializing 'personal preference'.  Obviously the preference may be for things that will later be considered legend, however assuming nihilism (as I was when I spoke of morality being purely personal preference) is there really anything morally different between Schindler and Hitler?  Yeah Schindler's personal preference may be considered (somewhat) 'good' if one assumes objective morality, however, if one assumes subjective morality his actions were just that, actions.  Same as my actions, your actions, or Hitler's actions.  Just actions, devoid of any moral 'good' or 'bad'.  Anyway I'm curious as to what you meant, could you please elaborate on this portion of your post? : )

You just switched from a deductive argument to an inductive argument. Why are you holding atheism to the stringency of a deductive argument while theism to the lesser inductive argument?

My apologies, I wasn't thorough enough with my abrupt seeming change of direction.  I intended to say that I hold the existence of god, and thus a basis for theistic morality, perhaps possible to reasonably prove with an inductive argument.  If god can be proven (or at least accepted philosophically speaking) then a system of theistic morality could then possibly be considered deductive.  I wasn't attempting to imply that atheistic morality must have a deductive argument, but theistic morality doesn't need one, I was merely saying that atheistic morality doesn't even have the slightest possibility of being deductive while theistic morality does hold a possibility (however slight one may choose to put it).

Basically, if we assume objective morality, it seems to follow that we must also assume a god.

-Ihateusernames

PS: I'm sleepy, been a reeeally long day, probably should put this post off till tomorrow where I can proof read it.. but what the heck, here it is in all of its grammatical (and hopefully not) logical errors! : )

[samjones4455]

I apologise if I'm covering areas that have all ready recently been discussed in other topics, but I couldn't find this idea anywhere else.
I have been thinking. Many theists claim that their religion should be supported/believed/whatever due to the morals that it teaches. First of all, I want to point out that I find it very offensive when, particularly Christians, claim that the ten commandments are the basis for western countries legal systems and morals. These people seem to believe that if it wasn't for Christianity, the human race would not have realised that murder, rape, theft etc are things that we should not do. Understanding that we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals many religions preach and our current legal systems, and it was not the case, as many would have you believe, that these religions were the source of these morals. This is not my main point however.

The main reason for this thread is for me to ask a question.

Do you think that the concept of morals is still valid in a world without God, and if so, would you agree that this concept is far more logical without God?

Whilst many of the major religions have, at least in part, an admirable set of basic morals (ignoring the true face of the religion for now), these values are all really, in my opinion, a manifestation of selfishness. A theist believes that they must not murder their neighbour because if they do, God will not be happy, and will punish them or not allow them into heaven etc. Although I am of course not suggesting that all Christians would go out and become murderers without the ten commandments, the reason they follow the ten commandments is because they want to be treated the same way, and want to get into heaven.

Now then, lets look at the world from an atheist point of view. Personally, as an atheist I believe that there is no such thing as good or evil, they are man made concepts. However, it is still obvious that certain things are wrong. Murder, theft and rape, are thing that it would be horrible for me to do. So ignoring the defects in my personality, and assuming I can stick to these morals, I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do. There would be no one omnipotently judging me, and I recognise that life and nature has no concept of 'fair', and so chances are I will not be rewarded. So if I still stick to my morals, does that not make me a much better person than a Christian sticking to their morals to get into heaven?

I await your comments, good or bad.

[Whitney]

I think that morals are a product of evolution.  Humans, being social animals, require some means of cooperating in groups.  Morality defines what we have decided as a society is beneficial or harmful (killing bad, helping others good).  As we have become more advanced in our thinking what is moral has become more complex (ie the abortion debate, animal rights etc).

Frankly, I'm scared of anyone who only acts morally because they fear their god and hope they always hold onto the religion that is apparently keeping them from killing me.  Normal, mentally healthy, human beings are able to empathizes with others and therefore will feel bad if they do something that causes harm.

[G-Roll]

particularly Christians, claim that the ten commandments are the basis for western countries legal systems and morals.

How do they figure that? Thou shall not steal and thou shall not murder are the only 2 out of 10 that most people follow. Because most people don’t care about adultery. They might say they care, but how many people do you know who cheat or even have been cheated on?

These people seem to believe that if it wasn't for Christianity, the human race would not have realised that murder, rape, theft etc are things that we should not do. Understanding that we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals many religions preach and our current legal systems, and it was not the case, as many would have you believe, that these religions were the source of these morals. This is not my main point however.

“we should not do these things is a result of our intelligence and development of social structure, which has led to the morals..” a recent thought has come to me that our society hasn’t realized that murder, rape, or theft is wrong. We can claim that its wrong but how many people fill up over populated prisons? Right now as you read this someone most likely is murdered. Most likely more than just one. So how does our society or any society claim to know murder, rape, and theft, and ect. Are immoral and wrong?

Do you think that the concept of morals is still valid in a world without God, and if so, would you agree that this concept is far more logical without God?

I don’t believe in morals or ethic systems. I think its a trained response to the pressures of society. I don’t know if there are 2 people on the face of the earth with the exact same moral standards.
So to answer the main question i don’t think without a gods influence morality would be much different. We would still be pack/herd animals and care about our family and people in our circles. So no I don’t think god influenced anything.  

Whilst many of the major religions have, at least in part, an admirable set of basic morals (ignoring the true face of the religion for now), these values are all really, in my opinion, a manifestation of selfishness. A theist believes that they must not murder their neighbour because if they do, God will not be happy, and will punish them or not allow them into heaven etc. Although I am of course not suggesting that all Christians would go out and become murderers without the ten commandments, the reason they follow the ten commandments is because they want to be treated the same way, and want to get into heaven.

Interesting thought. I think it was mother Teresa who said there is no such thing as an unselfish act...

Personally, as an atheist I believe that there is no such thing as good or evil, they are man made concepts. However, it is still obvious that certain things are wrong. Murder, theft and rape, are thing that it would be horrible for me to do. So ignoring the defects in my personality, and assuming I can stick to these morals, I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do.

If you do not believe in good and evil why would you believe in right and wrong? Obviously right and wrong are not universal. So who decides what is right and what is wrong?
“I would be doing it purely because I recognise it is the right thing to do.”  in defence of some of our Christian friends there are people in the world who are just good, sweet, or helpful. I think it might be kinda unfair to state that theists only do nice things to please a god.

I recognise that life and nature has no concept of 'fair', and so chances are I will not be rewarded.

Not in an eternal since, no.

[Dagda]

So if I still stick to my morals, does that not make me a much better person than a Christian sticking to their morals to get into heaven?

I await your comments, good or bad.

If you do not believe in good or evil then you cannot believe in right or wrong. If evil is a human construction, then so too is wrong, and without these principles morality becomes a pointless search for meaning in a meaningless world. You are no better or worse than anyone else, you just are.

However, your claim that morality is a human invention interests me; please expand.

Personally I think morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately. Morality only makes sense as an objective truth, and this objectivity can only work with a God. As such I do not believe that morality can survive in the absence of some kind of universal deity/law-maker.

[samjones4455]

I understand that without a divine creator, and no one judging the entire world, there can be no definitive right or wrong. I also understand that more complex moral issues such abortion are entirely subjective. Your statement that we "just are" is one which I entirely agree with. So perhaps I am being rather naive, but I still believe that there are certain really simple actions that we know are wrong, such as murdering an innocent man. There is no divine reason why this is wrong, there is no black and white binary, and the idea of universal morals falls apart with any added complexity, but I still think that murder of an innocent man is wrong.

My statement that morality is a human invention is linked with this, and you appear to be getting at it in your own words ("Personally I think that morality must appear to exist for society to function adequately"). We have created a moral structure so that we can co-operate and be social and do all the stuff that makes us different from animals, and it just happens that not only is it an illusion, but the very concept of it is flawed without a God.

Anything I missed?