Does morality work without a deity?

[Darth_Pugwash]

I've not read the entire thread, but it is kind of an interesting question, I think.

If you take morality as a logical framework: The framework will come down to a series of axioms or first principles, from which the rest of the system derived. What gives these points ultimate authority, in the absence of the divine? Well - nothing, I'm afraid. Without the ordination of some higher power any morality-system will come down to a list of points which cannot be proven one way or the other. In a sense, this system would be a sham. So - yes, without a diety morality does not 'work'.

But, we can take other definitions of the term 'work'. To give a simple example - A society that is opposed on moral grounds to indiscriminate killing may prosper and grow where a more violent one would collapse in on itself. So, in the sense that it may aid in the development of 'sucessful' civilizations, societies and cultures - yes, you might argue that morality works.

To offer an answer to the OP's question - Where does morality come from? If not from a diety, then I might suggest that it's something like a set of evolved values that have out-competed other values through their association with successful societies. Let's say - the society that worships the river-God comes to understand annual flooding in a nuanced way, and is able to grow more food in flood plains. Ultimately this position does rule out any question of there being an 'ultimate' moral right - but, you could still say that it exists and is relevant, in a way.

If morality is purely the product and realm of an individual belief system, then the question of what is right or wrong breaks down and any action is justified.

This might just be a little confusion of wording - but I think that it's worth pointing out that in this context the word 'justified' would be in a sense meaningless: actions might be better understood as a physical and not moral phenomena. Does 'justification' apply to a ball rolling down a hill? At a base level - how else are we to understand things except as physical events, in the absence of morality? It's not so much that any action would be justified - more that justice would be a meaningless concept.

I think these points have pretty much been addressed.. and I'd agree that without the super-authority of a diety, any moral assertion is practically impossible to actually prove. It's a little difficult to confront this idea - that we can't actually, really say that one action is more moral than another, or 'measure' morality in any way - but it may be truthful, I think. I don't have any particular belief in a diety. That said, I - like most people - try to live a fairly decent life nonetheless!

 

[Borachio]

Morality in its purest form is just about preventing things that hurt society such as stealing and murder.

Is it?

I thought morality was about what is right or wrong in terms of intentions, decisions and actions.

I don't see anything about preventing things that hurt society in it. Still, I don't know. Maybe you're right and it does come down to exactly that in the end.

Without the ordination of some higher power any morality-system will come down to a list of points which cannot be proven one way or the other.

I don't see how a deity helps in any way with proving your bullet point list.

On the other hand, I can see numerous drawbacks with claiming divine sanction for a system of morality. History seems to be literally littered with (if not solely composed of) incidents of people mistreating each other on the basis of divine sanction.

 

[warpus]

Without the ordination of some higher power any morality-system will come down to a list of points which cannot be proven one way or the other.

Why do you think people continue to argue about moral issues such as abortion?

Unfortunately some things just can't be "proven", and you have to make a case for your side, if you want to throw your opinion in the ring and try to influence society's take on the moral quandry in question.

But hey, that's life! We can do it.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I don't see how a deity helps in any way with proving your bullet point list.

On the other hand, I can see numerous drawbacks with claiming divine sanction for a system of morality. History seems to be literally littered with (if not solely composed of) incidents of people mistreating each other on the basis of divine sanction.

I'd agree that appealing to a diety to answer the question is something of a cop-out. The way that it helps, though, is this: If there's a God, who is incapable of any errors, then Whatever He Says Goes. Just like that! It does solve the problem, but in a cop-out, hands-in-the-air sort of way.

Why do you think people continue to argue about moral issues such as abortion?

Unfortunately some things just can't be "proven", and you have to make a case for your side, if you want to throw your opinion in the ring and try to influence society's take on the moral quandry in question.

But hey, that's life! We can do it.

People discuss these things because it comes naturally to them, I think. It's as simple and as complex as that!

I wouldn't suggest that anybody give up on arguing for what they believe in! I might suggest that morality - as it is so difficult to show anything to be absolutely true - comes down to something more like a personal preference or perhaps a set of naturally-historically-evolved values than an demonstrably final code though

 

[warpus]

I agree, which is why a deity having a stronghold on morality doesn't make sense to me - it would make morality objective, but it seems to be fully dependent on the species and society in question. In other words, as societies change, that society's moral frameworks tend to change as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

But that just pushes moral laws up one meta-level.

"Compliment a woman's bum" is a good thing if it's your wife, your friend, or anyone who'd appreciate the compliment. But if the person isn't going to appreciate the compliment for cultural reasons, then issuing it is no longer moral.

The moral laws are consistent, that they're context-dependent doesn't change that.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I agree, which is why a deity having a stronghold on morality doesn't make sense to me - it would make morality objective, but it seems to be fully dependent on the species and society in question. In other words, as societies change, that society's moral frameworks tend to change as well.

A religiously minded-counter point would be to say - Morality is objective, it's merely our interpretation of it which has been murky!

But yes - I think that I agree, it seems more like morality comes from us and from our natures.

 

[madviking]

A religiously minded-counter point would be to say - Morality is objective, it's merely our interpretation of it which has been murky!

it's not just religious minded. that's pretty much what Plato said.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Plato also had such infantile views of the world that we as well may consider him another religious-minded. Even if he used a lot of words to argue them. He still was IMO fundamentally a mystique who believed in some sort of higher order and beauty behind all things, just as religious people. Not the soulless careless order as natural law, but the kind of order humans like to dream up to comfort themselves.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I've not read the entire thread, but it is kind of an interesting question, I think.

I think so too I encourage to read the whole thread if you've got the time, there's been some very interesting and fascinating discussions from quite a few points of view!

This might just be a little confusion of wording - but I think that it's worth pointing out that in this context the word 'justified' would be in a sense meaningless: actions might be better understood as a physical and not moral phenomena. Does 'justification' apply to a ball rolling down a hill? At a base level - how else are we to understand things except as physical events, in the absence of morality? It's not so much that any action would be justified - more that justice would be a meaningless concept.

Well, yes, you're certainly right. If morality is purely individual, then "justification" for moral actions would also be purely internal and would be irrelevant to others as each person would have a different standard of justification which would go hand in hand with their individual standards of morality.

I think these points have pretty much been addressed.. and I'd agree that without the super-authority of a diety, any moral assertion is practically impossible to actually prove. It's a little difficult to confront this idea - that we can't actually, really say that one action is more moral than another, or 'measure' morality in any way - but it may be truthful, I think. I don't have any particular belief in a diety. That said, I - like most people - try to live a fairly decent life nonetheless!

I certainly hope no one thinks I'm accusing anyone of not being moral simply because they don't believe in a deity I just find the question fascinating, and thought others might find it an interesting discussion as well.

 

[Tahuti]

Am I still the only one who thinks that not morality itself but the struggle between moralities matter?

 

[Borachio]

I didn't know you thought that.

Why do you think that?

Are you saying that it's not the truth itself that matters, but the struggle to find the truth?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Interesting, would you mind clarifying what you mean?

 

[timtofly]

A religiously minded-counter point would be to say - Morality is objective, it's merely our interpretation of it which has been murky!

But yes - I think that I agree, it seems more like morality comes from us and from our natures.

It would seem that anything that attempts to control another human which is labeled moral would always fall under the heading religious. That is because humans have attempted to create a "god" that figures into their concept of morality.

Take away the separate fact of there even being a deity, and you have Caesars. Today they are called Presidents, with a little less deity, but charisma can be just as effective.

Take away the power to control people and most "religious" beliefs would fall just as flat as any other moral attempt to do so. All morality does is show us the human condition which is less than optimal.

Morality works just fine without a deity. Morality can be self imposed. The only reason that a deity would be needed is if humans cannot trust themselves to be self governed. What that deity is may be a totally different topic, especially if you hold to the belief that one needs a "god" to be moral. Perhaps that was the actual question trying to be asked/answered in this thread? Trust in the human condition seems to be a bigger issue than having Trust in God. The former is reality. The latter is only a reality if humans allow themselves to give up on any concept of religion they may have.

I can agree with the sentiment that most humans are taught what to believe from a very young age. Unfortunately that can give one a concept of reality and not reality itself.

What one cannot be without God, is freedom from the less than optimal condition known as humanity. If one objects that being something other than human is also just a concept, there is no way any one can convince you to think any other way.

 

[Tahuti]

I didn't know you thought that.

Why do you think that?

Are you saying that it's not the truth itself that matters, but the struggle to find the truth?

Interesting, would you mind clarifying what you mean?

Well, compare Albert Camus' reinterpretation of the Sisyphus myth. A guy moves a boulder up the mountain only to have it fall downwards. Finding moral truths is essentially the same thing. For instance, for Progressive activists, civil rights was a major step forwards. However, eventually they got their way, went euphoric, then engaged in relatively smaller issues with however the same vigour when the novelty of civil rights wore off. That moment when the novelty wore off, was essentially analogous to the boulder crashing down again. Every time your ambition is reached, you will seek another one.

Moral truth is like keeping boulder in the mountain. It cannot stay there. And it is good that way. The world would be a boring place if it weren't the case.

 

[madviking]

that's certainly one view of meta-ethics.

 

[Hygro]

Plato also had such infantile views of the world that we as well may consider him another religious-minded. Even if he used a lot of words to argue them. He still was IMO fundamentally a mystique who believed in some sort of higher order and beauty behind all things, just as religious people. Not the soulless careless order as natural law, but the kind of order humans like to dream up to comfort themselves.

I think Plato wrote a lot of satire.

Am I still the only one who thinks that not morality itself but the struggle between moralities matter?

Yes, although the struggle among moralities is certainly more interesting.

 

[Tahuti]

I think Plato wrote a lot of satire.

If that's the case, the Islamic republic of Iran would be the most succesful implementation of practical comedy ever! Abbie Hoffman is to be considered an amateur compared to Ayatollah Khomeini, who was a fan of Plato.

Yes, although the struggle among moralities is certainly more interesting.

Moral truth itself is not interesting at all. And all that is interesting has been borne out of the clash of values. The very meaning of life depends on it.

 

[Hygro]

Moral truth itself is not interesting at all. And all that is interesting has been borne out of the clash of values. The very meaning of life depends on it.

That's and interesting moral judgment you got there...

 

[madviking]

meta-ethics is a way more interesting field than normative ethics.