Godless morality

[Whitney]

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.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not.  Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc.  The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

[SSY]

Morality only makes sense as an objective truth

Disagree, do you have any arguments to support this?

[Ihateusernames]

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.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not.  Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc.  The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

Pardon my interjection but the philosophic viscosity of this post was rather low...

It doesn't follow that If morality were objective there would be no debate over the morality of various actions.  If an ultimately great being exists who established an objective morality in the universe during its creation (the question on hand), and there also exists a different being who has the ability to question or think ('free will', if you will) then the possibility of the second being deviating from the objective morality established is definitely possible at least.  If you then multiply this possible deviation by, what, 6.7 billion, I'd say the variety of our opinions on morality should be expected to be very diverse but this diversity still doesn't necessarily mean that there is no objective moral code built into existence that we all 'should' follow.

Think of the rationalization of evil that we all do.  There are large groups of people (even whole societies) to which certain things we hold as evil are taken for granted (female genital mutilation, rape, child slave labor... etc.). Are you really saying that because their society doesn't think their actions are "wrong" it then make the inhabitants of that society's atrocious actions not evil?  for example, I don't see any of us claiming that the goal of human rights in china is just 'evil American ethnocentrism', but think of it, if we claim there is no objective morality then how can it be anything BUT pure ethnocentrism?

I really don't understand the sentiment that if a "large group of people think X is right, then X should be considered 'moral'"  That sentiment totally misses the whole concept of 'morality' or 'right and wrong'.  For something to be "moral" doesn't it has to be moral whether any human thinks it is moral or not?

Anyway, to me, your post is basically advocating the before sentiment.

-Ihateusernames

PS: just a small side note: Obviously the assumption of the greater being, as well as the creation of the universe are topics for different posts, but if you accept those two premises (even for the sake of argument), objective morality actually does make sense, even in our world of differing opinions.

[Dagda]

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?

Sorry, I cannot let you away with that one. ‘makes us different from animals’ is a Christian myth which, as an atheist, you really should not be advocating. We are animals. If you think differently then I challenge you to come up with a trait which raises us above the animal kingdom beyond mere ascetics. Dolphins and some primates seem to make moral decisions and ants build cities (hives) with a clear social structure, and some termites even seem to have self-awareness (although not really a human style of self-awareness, but awareness none the less). I think you will find that it is very difficult to set humanity apart from the rest of the living world without appealing to some sort of Christian myth.

As to your claim that some things are just wrong without there being any kind of objective moral framework, then here is an exercise for you: I enjoy killing innocent men; it is your job to convince me that this action is ‘just wrong’.

Morality only makes sense as an objective truth

Disagree, do you have any arguments to support this?

Why do you disagree? My logic is one of elimination. Every other theory about morality makes no sense therefore I was left with objectivism. As no better theory has yet surfaced I maintain that morality makes no sense unless it is objective. Of course if morality does not exist then my problem disappears, but I have yet to be convinced of that fact. We each have a moral compass of some description. The simplest explanation is that we have a moral compass because some form of morality exists. Although it is possible that morality is an evolutionary development of some description, no evidence has come forward in support of this theory, so I hold on to the simplest explanation until it can be disproved.  

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.

If morality were objective, esp if it were god given, there would be no debate over whether things like homosexuality and abortion are immoral or not. Many religious people can't even agree on if it is moral to dance and sing, or if it is okay for women to cut their hair, leave it uncovered, dress like a man etc. The list of things people disagree over is very very long and to those that think some of the things are wrong it is a huge deal.

So, where is objective morality from God?

What morals are objective other than those which are obviously for survival; like don't kill a clan member (which really is about as close as we get to universal do not kill since many cultures have existed in which it is okay to kill someone who is not like yourself; waring countries do that today on a massive scale)

This is why I say that if it is right to call morality objective that morality is only objective in the sense that right and wrong can be objectively determined by investigating the effects of action upon a society....the objective source would be "human nature" or even "gorilla nature" since humans are not the only animals who display an understanding of right and wrong in their interactions with others.

Just to reiterate, no objectivist should claim that they know the objective moral truth, just that there is one.

[Traveler]

What's with the ten commandments anyway? The first three or four (depending on which version you read) are just about god, his name, idols and so forth. They have nothing to do with morals. They're just big sky daddy telling us he's jealous and wants us to worship him correctly. When talking morality why not say the seven commandments? Or the six commandments? Just saying ...

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

[harriet_tubman]

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.  a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.  

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient.  i believe in a designed universe.  good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

[JillSwift]

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.  a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.  

if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient.  i believe in a designed universe.  good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

The one thing this universe does better and more often than anything else is make black holes, and eventually this universe will be made up of black holes and remnant particles. By your argument, the best thing we humans could do is make a black hole.

I guess the LHC is on the right track.  :drool

[Whitney]

Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

[curiosityandthecat]

"The universe" doesn't care. It has no objective. It simply is.

[/thread]

[Kylyssa]

a lot of atheists don't want to admit that but ultimately they just fall back on a tyranny of the cooperative: good is that which helps the largest group or the most powerful group.

But that is what theists do!  The funny thing is that most people who subscribe to Social Darwinism are religious.  I would bet every penny I have that, the percentage of atheists who support Social Darwinism is far smaller than the percentage of religious folks that do.*  

In example; Republicans in America strongly support Social Darwinism.  They believe that the economy should be a completely free market economy with no controls whatsoever where the powerful can be in complete control.  They want to be free of regulations that prevent monopolies, free of minimum wages and mandated safety regulations, and they want all government attempts to assist those less fortunate stopped completely.  Most Republicans are Christians.  The percentage of atheist Republicans is minuscule, far lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population.


*I'm anticipating an assertion that there are fewer atheists than Christians in the general population so that is why a smaller percentage of them are Social Darwinists than the percentage of religious folks that are Social Darwinists.  I anticipate this assertion because, in discussions with religious fundamentalists it nearly always comes up.  But let's explain percentages a moment.  Say that ten percent of a group of a thousand people are atheists.  That means there are a hundred atheists in that group.  Let's say that 50% of atheists have brown eyes.  That means that fifty atheists have brown eyes.  But let's also say that 50% of theists have brown eyes.  That means that 450 of the theists have brown eyes.  While more theists in that situation have brown eyes, the exact same percentage of atheists have brown eyes even though there are only fifty atheists in this group who have brown eyes.  450 theists out of 900 theists is the same percentage as 50 atheists out of 100 atheists.

[Sophus]

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where I ever said life is an accident.  

Where does one's sense of right and wrong come from? The conscience. Where does the conscience come from? The brain. Where does the brain come from? Well, you see, a long time ago the only life on earth was bacteria.....

[pinkocommie]

"The universe" doesn't care. It has no objective. It simply is.

[/thread]

+1

[i_am_i]

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  if you're the result of an accident, good is that which benefits you.

I can see that you've put a lot of thought into this.

[Tank]

if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.  
{snip}.

Before you type one more letter read the following Probability theory

[harriet_tubman]

Does it matter if there is an intention behind it if ultimately the race for survival leads to a place where everything attempts to evolve to"resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient"...is that not what evolution does?

no, blind forces do not work in coordination.  what's good for the snake is bad for the mouse.  darwin and dawkins do not believe that blind forces are working together to form a more magnificent whole.