Does morality work without a deity?

[timtofly]

What good is morality without justice? How can humans ever be just?

 

[Tahuti]

What good is morality without justice? How can humans ever be just?

Justice a concept to create conflicts. Without a conception of good and wrong, we have no reason to impose our will on the world. Our attempts to impose our will on the world, and to fail and succeed doing so, is what human life and by extent morality is all about. There will always be many kinds of moralities vying with each other and this is good. The process of fulfilling a moral goal is more important than the reasoning behind the morality itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Traffic laws are moral. At their core they are based on preserving life, on the idea that losing life is "wrong."

That's a different view. I'll let my previous argument stand.

Property laws are moral. They state you cannot take something that belongs to someone else, on the idea that stealing is "wrong."

Again a different view. So you seem to be saying that making the guy stand out in the sun on a hot day rather than letting him "steal" some shade is the "moral" thing to do. If you are correct that property law is based in morality then the implementation is extremely poor.

Contract laws are moral. They state that you have to stand by your word, on the idea that lying is "wrong."

Contract law is about the governing of enforcement. As I said, if someone doesn't honor their word as part of their individual morality, generally speaking the law can't make them do it. Contract law resolves the resulting disputes without resorting to (individual) violence. It has nothing to do with "lying is wrong", since in almost all cases the negotiations leading up to the signing of a contract involved gigantic whoppers on both sides and everyone knows it.

Laws regarding assault are moral. They state that you can't hurt someone else just because you want to, on the idea that hurting someone is "wrong."

I'm sure there are laws which aren't based on a moral judgment of some sort, but the argument that laws are separate and distinct from moral judgments is patently silly.

I don't think my arguments are completely definitive, but I don't think yours are strong enough to justify the degree of dismissiveness this name calling indicates. I am surprised that your individual morality allows such. If I were not constrained by my individual morality I would name call you right back.

I'm trying to stay away from arguments regarding specific deities in the main point of the thread, but as I said in the OP I am a Christian.

Ah, that explains it. You don't operate by individual morality, but by the imposed morality of "if God doesn't like it he'll strike me dead, and since he hasn't apparently anything goes". Self proclaimed Christians are always so hard to deal with.

 

[timtofly]

Justice a concept to create conflicts. Without a conception of good and wrong, we have no reason to impose our will on the world. Our attempts to impose our will on the world, and to fail and succeed doing so, is what human life and by extent morality is all about. There will always be many kinds of moralities vying with each other and this is good. The process of fulfilling a moral goal is more important than the reasoning behind the morality itself.

Conflict is the human drive. Humans do not need concepts to accomplish that. I just do not see, how humans with their own conflict driven selfishness, bring about justice and peace without changing who they are. No one has come up with a way to do that. Not even the "god" concept.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Justice a concept to create conflicts. Without a conception of good and wrong, we have no reason to impose our will on the world. Our attempts to impose our will on the world, and to fail and succeed doing so, is what human life and by extent morality is all about. There will always be many kinds of moralities vying with each other and this is good. The process of fulfilling a moral goal is more important than the reasoning behind the morality itself.

Thus any attempt at a collective morality is immoral since it involves someone imposing their will on the world, which in any collective morality is deemed an immoral act.

 

[Cheetah]

Dawkin's answer basically is that morality without religion is impossible, or at least undesirable.

He says he thinks Morality should be identical to social consensus. He bludgeons religious persons for behavior like stoning, but refuses to refuses to rule them out as absolutely immoral, only currently unfashionable.

It's popular to point out that Dawkins is much the same as religious fundamentalism, but that's usually in the scope of dogmatism. But what's interesting here is that he admits he has no fundamental moral disagreement with the Taliban.

That's a very restrictive interpretation of what Dawkins said IMO.

His stated points, as far as I can tell, is that the many of the morals prescribed in religious texts are things that he disagrees with, and that we have arrived at the more agreeable, current moral stance through discussion/logic/reason/etc.

Explicitly he says that he doesn't think he wants an absolute morality, but a morality that is open to change [as our understanding of reality evolves IMO].

So it's a good answer to destroy the argument for a given, absolute morality.

He doesn't say that he thinks a perfect morality exists, but the way I understand him, he holds the same stance as warpus outlined earlier: If you can give a proper argument to modify our morality, then he'll be open to change his mind.

 

[Perfection]

What good is morality without justice? How can humans ever be just?

Maybe we can be less unjust?

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's a very restrictive interpretation of what Dawkins said IMO.

I try not to add in what I want a speaker to say when I interpret his words.

His stated points, as far as I can tell, is that the many of the morals prescribed in religious texts are things that he disagrees with, and that we have arrived at the more agreeable, current moral stance through discussion/logic/reason/etc.

Yes. But he also rules out that anyone, including himself, is not bound to not stone women. It is a particular preference he holds at this time, as I hold a preference for white sauce or tomato sauce, but if it strikes my fancy, I might have tomato sauce.

And of course, this puts all sorts of atrocities as fundamentally beyond challenge in Dawkin's philosophy. Even in relative terms, you can't dispute the fact that the morality of causing the premature deaths of 300,000 Iraqi children is a fundamentally agreeable moral action, and is certainly more agreeable than the position that its alternative.

Explicitly he says that he doesn't think he wants an absolute morality, but a morality that is open to change [as our understanding of reality evolves IMO].

That means implicitly, he wants a system of morality that is open to stoning adulterers, burning people at the stake, etc.

So it's a good answer to destroy the argument for a given, absolute morality.

Not really. Because the question was if he could form a system of absolute morality without god. A more concise and effective response to the question, if proving the lack of absolute morality was his goal, it would suffice to say "No, we can not. We are in disagreement.

He doesn't say that he thinks a perfect morality exists, but the way I understand him, he holds the same stance as warpus outlined earlier: If you can give a proper argument to modify our morality, then he'll be open to change his mind.

And that's the problem. That's not a system of morality at all. That's simply an acknowledgement that you'll insist whatever it is you decide to do was moral.

Which of course means at every moral level, Dawkins has no claim that his moral system is actually better than Osama bin Laden's, or a career criminal, or Stalin or anyone. He has renounced the claim to any judgement existing between the two people, and this is a simple disagreement over preference.

The only thing he has going for him is implicit Privilege. It's obvious to him, for reasons he doesn't have to spell out, why his preference is more desirable than Al-Baghdadi's.

And it's not because of the rape, the torture, the tyranny, etc. Dawkin's has made it clear both in principle and in practice he is willing to consider those preferable e.g. moral.

But of course there is an obvious reason why Dawkin's preferences are so much more preferable than say, Abubakar Shekau.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I have a few somewhat OT responses in this post which I have put in Spoilers to not interrupt the on-topic flow.

It comes from our wiring. We all have very similar DNA and our brains are shaped alike. We often agree on moral truths because we have something in our brains that derives moral instincts and that thing doesn't very much from person to person. It's the same reason we all agree sugar is sweet.

I find this to be a fascinating argument...so essentially you're saying that some sense of morality is built into our DNA? That at some level it's genetic?

Here's the deal. I'm skeptical that you actually have a law you can point at when you make moral statements. I'm guessing that you actually do the same thing I do and say something is moral because it feels right to you. So please show me how you make this derivation.

Since you want specifics, here is one of the essential foundations for Christian morality:

Spoiler :

From Matthew 5-7

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment....

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift....

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart....

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery....

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you....

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous....

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you....

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins....

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you....

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye....

What does God base His judgements on?

This is a deeply theological question, and probably varies from religion to religion.

Spoiler :

In Christianity, God's judgments are based on Himself as He is the only perfect, holy being in the universe. God's judgments follow His character perfectly, otherwise He would not be immutable (another important doctrine).

I am not an expert theologian, so TBH the question would be better answered in the Ask a Theologian thread.

Why not?

Well, how could you?

Bob says murder is wrong. Ben says murder isn't. If morality is individually decided, neither one has greater weight.

That's a different view. I'll let my previous argument stand....

Again a different view. So you seem to be saying that making the guy stand out in the sun on a hot day rather than letting him "steal" some shade is the "moral" thing to do. If you are correct that property law is based in morality then the implementation is extremely poor.

Contract law is about the governing of enforcement. As I said, if someone doesn't honor their word as part of their individual morality, generally speaking the law can't make them do it. Contract law resolves the resulting disputes without resorting to (individual) violence. It has nothing to do with "lying is wrong", since in almost all cases the negotiations leading up to the signing of a contract involved gigantic whoppers on both sides and everyone knows it.

I don't think my arguments are completely definitive, but I don't think yours are strong enough to justify the degree of dismissiveness this name calling indicates. I am surprised that your individual morality allows such. If I were not constrained by my individual morality I would name call you right back.

I don't really see where I was name-calling, but if I offended you I sincerely apologize and will take better care with my word choices. I find that I usually disassociate myself when taking part in debates to be pretty unemotional, but I also find that sometimes that leads me to offending people without meaning to.

I disagree with your views on the laws we have discussed as laws are expressions of what the community finds important (i.e. value judgments). That does not mean that they do not also have practical import, but the practical import does not negate the value judgment underlying the law.

Ah, that explains it. You don't operate by individual morality, but by the imposed morality of "if God doesn't like it he'll strike me dead, and since he hasn't apparently anything goes". Self proclaimed Christians are always so hard to deal with.

Sounds like a self-proclaimed bias against Christians...and not really in line with your previous statement.

Spoiler :

I feel like this might need to be said as things seem to be getting a little too personal: I am by no means a perfect Christian, and any Christian who claims otherwise doesn't really get the basic tenet of our faith. I hold myself to the standard of God's law without pretending to be perfect in following it. I have, do, and will fall short of God's perfect standard, and am grateful when I am called out regarding it. I fully realize that there are plenty of self-righteous Christians, but I hope that just as any follower of a belief or philosophy would not want to be judged by the actions of a few you do not judge Christians by the actions of a few.

Can we both agree to not let things get any more personal?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, if God says murder is wrong, so what? Does this change the question of whether you 'should' do it? What makes His judgment affect the 'should'?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes. In fact I would say it ONLY works without a deity (or at least without a deity that is claimed to dictate morality). Because in that case you are basically saying that moral behaviour is to do what the big powerful guy tells you to do and not think for yourself. Which is kind of the opposite of moral behaviour in my book. Morality only means anything or has any use if it comes from ourselves, not imposed by force from outside.

 

[Tahuti]

Conflict is the human drive. Humans do not need concepts to accomplish that. I just do not see, how humans with their own conflict driven selfishness, bring about justice and peace without changing who they are. No one has come up with a way to do that. Not even the "god" concept.

The essence of all conflicts are ideas and values. However, in many cases, people change ideas and values to fit their material needs, as animals universally do, thus rendering their mental capabilities of lower order than humans. What makes humans special is precisely the ability to set aside material needs to pursue and impose their values.

Thus any attempt at a collective morality is immoral since it involves someone imposing their will on the world, which in any collective morality is deemed an immoral act.

Moral and immoral is in the eyes of the beholder. The thing is, universalism defeats the purpose of morality which is the following or creation of values for purpose. Making it physically or mentally impossible to dispute any given morality in favour of your own choosing essentially renders all life meaningless.

 

[Perfection]

I find this to be a fascinating argument...so essentially you're saying that some sense of morality is built into our DNA? That at some level it's genetic?

Absolutely. We have an innate sense of morality. When you seeing a child pleading with their parents that something isn't fair they aren't appealing to any authority but an abstract idea. A sense of morality and fairness is essential to functioning in human society. If you acted without care and regard to others you'd quickly find yourself isolated and that's bad for propagating genes.

Since you want specifics, here is one of the essential foundations for Christian morality:

That's not exactly what I want. Earlier you stated "As a theist, I base my moral judgment of hurting someone else as wrong based on God's law."

I'm trying to figure out how you got from God's law to that statement. Did you really refer to the bible in making that statement? Or did you, as I suspect, simply feel that
such a statement is true without actually deriving it from God's word.

This is a deeply theological question, and probably varies from religion to religion.

Spoiler :

In Christianity, God's judgments are based on Himself as He is the only perfect, holy being in the universe. God's judgments follow His character perfectly, otherwise He would not be immutable (another important doctrine).

I am not an expert theologian, so TBH the question would be better answered in the Ask a Theologian thread.

These kinds of issues are in my mind why God isn't particularly helpful in solving the origin of morality.

Well, how could you?

Bob says murder is wrong. Ben says murder isn't. If morality is individually decided, neither one has greater weight.

There's a number of ways to frame this conflict.

One could of say each is just stating a preference and there's nothing further to it.

Another way to look at is it to propose a test. Something to determine if it's right or wrong. You may argue asking God, FredLC (I only skimmed his posts so I may not be correctly stating his opinion) might appeal to utilitarian calculations.

There's another approach though. Moral fallibilism. The idea is there might well be moral truths, but we don't have a process to flawlessly arrive at complete solutions. The best we can do is use limited processes to make guesses as to what is right or wrong. This makes the most sense to me. Because while we might not know for sure murder is wrong with iron-clad certainty we have pretty good reasons to think so.

A last thing I'd like to point out is if Ben and Bob argue whether a chair is Red or Blue determining who is right is going to run into the same sorts of issues.

 

[CyberChrist]

I know I posted the following link recently in another thread already, but it seems even more appropriate to post in this thread.

The game Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher (100% free to play) revolves around the question of the source of morality (once you get past the tutorial part with the tradesman anyway) as well as clearing up some of the more common fallacies regarding the nature of morality.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Bob says murder is wrong. Ben says murder isn't. If morality is individually decided, neither one has greater weight.

Correct. Neither one does have greater weight. Now, one can find some way to impose his views on the other, but would either or both of them consider such an imposition to be moral? When all the Bobs get together and say "Our morality is superior, and you Bens have to go along on pain of death" they are surrendering their morality under the guise of 'a collective has overruled me so I am no longer responsible'.

I don't really see where I was name-calling, but if I offended you I sincerely apologize and will take better care with my word choices. I find that I usually disassociate myself when taking part in debates to be pretty unemotional, but I also find that sometimes that leads me to offending people without meaning to.

I'm pretty open to the rough and tumble actually, but was more than willing to focus your attention on your usage of 'patently silly'. As I said, I made my argument and you made yours, we were obviously not agreeing but the judgement wasn't needed

I disagree with your views on the laws we have discussed as laws are expressions of what the community finds important (i.e. value judgments). That does not mean that they do not also have practical import, but the practical import does not negate the value judgment underlying the law.

Laws that have "underlying value judgements" are usually bad laws. Law is what is required to make society work, and should not be a reflection of the morality of some group within that society which is then imposed on the rest.

Sounds like a self-proclaimed bias against Christians...and not really in line with your previous statement.

Can we both agree to not let things get any more personal?

Gladly. I wasn't trying to come off as biased against Christians, particularly, just suggesting where the source of our differences lies. It goes back to the Bobs and Bens at the top of this post.

Bob's morality says murder is wrong, but when all the Bobs get together they create a 'group morality' that allows them to be immoral. Any time morality is reduced to a group function it suffers, including when it is handed over to a judicial service or a god.

I am impressed that when confronted you recognized that you didn't want to fight and I admit that I misjudged you. I expected you to fall back on an angry defense of your faith...which would have allowed such within its group morality.



@Tovergieter

I think this:

Moral and immoral is in the eyes of the beholder. The thing is, universalism defeats the purpose of morality which is the following or creation of values for purpose. Making it physically or mentally impossible to dispute any given morality in favour of your own choosing essentially renders all life meaningless.

fit pretty well with what I said. Morality is an individual thing. If it is replaced with a standard that is maintained through punishment and reward it is no longer morality, just obedience.

 

[FredLC]

thecrazyscot:

I definitively have a few things to say about your reply. But weekend is over, so it likely will take a few days for me to have either time or inclination. Hang tight.



Perfection:

(...) You may argue asking God, FredLC (I only skimmed his posts so I may not be correctly stating his opinion) might appeal to utilitarian calculations.

I'm shocked. I did read your post, you know?

There's another approach though. Moral fallibilism. The idea is there might well be moral truths, but we don't have a process to flawlessly arrive at complete solutions. The best we can do is use limited processes to make guesses as to what is right or wrong. This makes the most sense to me. Because while we might not know for sure murder is wrong with iron-clad certainty we have pretty good reasons to think so.

But they are not mutually exclusive. Much of my proposal is grounded on the notion of fallibility and review of previous standards, after all.

Regards .

 

[Perfection]

I figured as much. I'm post mostly via phone so don't read as much.

 

[CyberChrist]

Because while we might not know for sure murder is wrong with iron-clad certainty we have pretty good reasons to think so.

The conceptual meaning of Murder is: "intentful and wrongful(without moral justification) killing of another living being".

Of course, whether an individual/group considers a specific "killing of a living being" to be 'wrong' (and thus qualifies as being labeled "Murder") is subjective and open for debate.

But it is the classification of a specific "killing of a living being" that may be uncertain and not whether the Murder classification in itself is considered a wrongful act or not.

So yes, Murder always carries the conceptual meaning of a wrongful act.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Absolutely. We have an innate sense of morality. When you seeing a child pleading with their parents that something isn't fair they aren't appealing to any authority but an abstract idea. A sense of morality and fairness is essential to functioning in human society. If you acted without care and regard to others you'd quickly find yourself isolated and that's bad for propagating genes.

What I'm most interested in with this idea are the consequences of morality being genetic.

Does that mean that (at least some) people who commit immoral acts are doing so because they can't help it, genetically? That people are "born" immoral? How can someone who is genetically predisposed to something be punished for following his/her "nature"?

Does it mean that with gene therapy, we could potentially "fix" potential future immoral behavior before a person is born?

I find the idea of morality being genetic to be very interesting, but the consequences even more so.

That's not exactly what I want. Earlier you stated "As a theist, I base my moral judgment of hurting someone else as wrong based on God's law."

I'm trying to figure out how you got from God's law to that statement. Did you really refer to the bible in making that statement? Or did you, as I suspect, simply feel that
such a statement is true without actually deriving it from God's word.

Well, this is another theological question...

Spoiler :

I believe that God has established a universal moral law, which because we are made in His image we are naturally aware of through the conscience. One can see parallels to your "genetic morality" approach, except mine places the "gene" in a person's soul. This being said, I also believe that humans are "fallen", or because of sin that we have a natural disinclination to follow the moral law when it conflicts with our desires. The Bible is the revealed moral law and gives us a standard we can hold ourselves to when our desires conflict with the moral law.

There's another approach though. Moral fallibilism. The idea is there might well be moral truths, but we don't have a process to flawlessly arrive at complete solutions. The best we can do is use limited processes to make guesses as to what is right or wrong. This makes the most sense to me. Because while we might not know for sure murder is wrong with iron-clad certainty we have pretty good reasons to think so.

A last thing I'd like to point out is if Ben and Bob argue whether a chair is Red or Blue determining who is right is going to run into the same sorts of issues.

If the best we can do is make guesses, then it all comes back down to individual morality, as who is to say which guess is correct?

An argument of whether a chair is red or blue could certainly run into the same issues if morality is a genetic thing, but the consequences are certainly much greater.

Correct. Neither one does have greater weight. Now, one can find some way to impose his views on the other, but would either or both of them consider such an imposition to be moral? When all the Bobs get together and say "Our morality is superior, and you Bens have to go along on pain of death" they are surrendering their morality under the guise of 'a collective has overruled me so I am no longer responsible'.

Interesting. Let me ask you this, have you ever seen someone commit an "immoral" act and you confronted or judged them?

Laws that have "underlying value judgements" are usually bad laws. Law is what is required to make society work, and should not be a reflection of the morality of some group within that society which is then imposed on the rest.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point

I would argue that laws, because they are by definition enacted by those in power, are a reflection of what those in power value. Again, this doesn't deny the practical nature of those laws, but I think that however desirable having completely logical laws may be (and to be honest that point is debatable) people cannot avoid passing laws without value judgments forming the underlying assumptions or arguments behind them.

Bob's morality says murder is wrong, but when all the Bobs get together they create a 'group morality' that allows them to be immoral. Any time morality is reduced to a group function it suffers, including when it is handed over to a judicial service or a god.

Except that this statement contradicts itself. If morality is purely individual, then Ben has no authority to state whether anyone else's morality is "immoral", even if that person subscribes to a group morality where individuals have come together to agree on a moral code.

In other words, if morality is only up to the individual (and subjective), then immorality is also subjective. The group morality doesn't allow anyone to be any more or less immoral than they already allow themselves to be.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, given our lack of knowledge, any system of morality will boil down to 'best guesses'. Doesn't matter if God created morals or if you believe God created morals.

There's an interesting side-bar regarding punishment. For some people, there's a 'point' to punishing wrong-doing other than rehabilitation or deterrence. They might think of punishment 'serving' justice, rather than it being a social tool.