Does morality work without a deity?

[thecrazyscot]

Where does the concept of "right and wrong" come from?

I am a Christian, I believe that morality comes from God - I believe it has to come from a higher power, or it is essentially meaningless.

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.

If morality is simply a communal construct, then who is to say which communal construct is better? What makes, to use a current example, ISIS worse or better than anyone else? And if an individual disagrees or does not fit with communal morality and leaves to start his/her own community, doesn't that bring us back to morality as a purely individual system, which then renders it meaningless again?

Thoughts? Opinions? I'm genuinely interested because it doesn't make logical sense to me, and I'm certainly open to the possibility that I may simply be missing something huge.

This thread isn't meant to discuss whether or not a deity exists, but the basis of morality.

 

[JollyRoger]

Substitute deity (which is a communal construct) for communal construct and see where that gets you. Even the same deity has a different communal construct among differing communities - ISIS and Christians worship the same deity, for example.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Substitute deity (which is a communal construct) for communal construct and see where that gets you. Even the same deity has a different communal construct among differing communities - ISIS and Christians worship the same deity, for example.

That is an argument about the existence of God, which my question explicitly excluded.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, it is an argument that your perceived weakness of community construct (which one) can just as easily be applied to deity (which deity). If you are claiming Christian deity only, then you are rejecting your own thread rules by implicitly debating the existence of every other deity.

 

[sophie]

does morality work without a deity?

yes

5char

 

[JollyRoger]

Are we taking it as a given that immorality exists with a deity?

 

[warpus]

If morality is simply a communal construct, then who is to say which communal construct is better?

Anyone's free to throw in their opinion into the ring, that's the beauty of it.

If you think Germany's abortion laws are better than Alabama's, that's your opinion to have and share, and if your opinion actually follows some sort of a logical line of thought, and is based on solid data, then you might very well have an opinion worth listening to.

We don't need no God for morality. "All we need is eachother." Etruscans 5:33

 

[BenitoChavez]

I don't see how morality isn't a communal construct, regardless of God's existence.

God exists. So the people who follow God's teaching believe X is moral and Y is immoral. People who don't follow God's teachings believe X is immoral and Y is moral.

God doesn't exists. Group A believes X is moral and Y is immoral. Group B believes X is immoral and Y is moral.

What is moral/immoral depends on what side of the fence you're on.

 

[Tahuti]

Morality comes from an authority. This may be an individual, a fictional being, a deity or laws, to name a couple of examples. That authority must be believable.

While this could be interpreted to be lex talionis, do note that an authority - if an individual - does hold certain subjective values that may effect the morality that is emanated from it. Though to follow a morality, is in effect to submit to an authority. Which may be a god if you are religious.

 

[madviking]

Ways morality could work without a divine being/general crashcourse in the awesome field of meta-ethics:

1. Non-cognitivism says that whenever we say that "x is wrong" we aren't making a genuine proposition and hence cannot be true nor false.
- Emotivism (cf. AJ Ayer) states that whenever we say that "x is wrong" what we are actually saying is "boooooo x".
- Alternatively, universal prescriptivism (cf. RM Hare) states that propositions, such as "x is wrong" is really saying "don't do x". Note that universal prescriptivism is compatible with most theories of moral universalism.

2. Error theory (cf. JL Mackie) states that, while all moral propositions are real, they are all false, as a form and subfield of moral nihilism.

3. Moral realism states that moral propositions are mind-independent facts, i.e. truths that exist out in the world.
- Naturalism is something I don't have a firm grasp on, but it essentially encompasses most (if not all) consequentialist and utilitarian theories by stating that "goodness" is some reducible property (for utilitarians, "goodness" reduces to pleasure/lack of pain/happiness/etc.)
- Non-naturalism (cf. GE Moore) is the opposite. It states that "goodness" is some sort of Thing out in the world and that we have a priori knowledge of them. May run aground on the naturalistic fallacy.

4. Moral subjectivism is one opposite of moral realism. It states that norms and culture create "right" and "wrong".
- Divine command theory (cf. Robert Adams) is one form of moral subjectivism (although it is important to note it is also a moral univeralist theory). The idea has been around since the ancient Greeks, when Socrates asked Euthyphro, essentially, "is Good good because the Gods make it good or is Good good because the Gods do it?"

So, thecrazyscot, I suppose a good place to begin discussion is with what Socrates asked: does Good make God or does God make Good?

 

[JollyRoger]

Though to follow a morality, is in effect to submit to an authority.

50 Shades of God is perhaps a way for many to channel their need to submit without the BDSM trappings.

 

[thecrazyscot]

No, it is an argument that your perceived weakness of community construct (which one) can just as easily be applied to deity (which deity). If you are claiming Christian deity only, then you are rejecting your own thread rules by implicitly debating the existence of every other deity.

My identifying myself as a Christian is simply to give a loose background about myself and where my question comes from. I am not trying to claim a Christian deity only, the thread is simply asking whether or not the concept of morality makes sense without a deity - any deity.

I am not going to try and argue that the the Christian deity is "correct" or the only one that exists in this thread.

Are we taking it as a given that immorality exists with a deity?

If morality exists, so does immorality.

Anyone's free to throw in their opinion into the ring, that's the beauty of it.

If you think Germany's abortion laws are better than Alabama's, that's your opinion to have and share, and if your opinion actually follows some sort of a logical line of thought, and is based on solid data, then you might very well have an opinion worth listening to.

We don't need no God for morality. "All we need is eachother." Etruscans 5:33

The problem is that when someone says that something is "right" or "wrong", a universal statement is being made, not only about your personal morality, but a basic assumption about everyone else's as well.

Why would logic and data be what makes an opinion worth listening to? Plenty of what many people call "horrific acts" or "war crimes" can be backed up with logic.

 

[BenitoChavez]

2. Error theory (cf. JL Mackie) states that, while all moral propositions are real, they are all false, as a form and subfield of moral nihilism.

like some sort of Schrodinger's cat type of deal?

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem is that when someone says that something is "right" or "wrong", a universal statement is being made, not only about your personal morality, but a basic assumption about everyone else's as well.

Why would logic and data be what makes an opinion worth listening to? Plenty of what many people call "horrific acts" or "war crimes" can be backed up with logic.

The problem is that when someone says that some religion's system of morality is "right" or "wrong", a universal statement is being made, not only about that religion's morality, but a basic assumption about should be everyone else's as well.

Why would religion be what makes an opinion worth listening to? Plenty of what many people call "horrific acts" or "war crimes" have been backed up with religious doctrine.

 

[madviking]

like some sort of Schrodinger's cat type of deal?

This explains Mackie's two reasons for error theory in quite some depth

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Where does the concept of "right and wrong" come from?

I am a Christian, I believe that morality comes from God - I believe it has to come from a higher power, or it is essentially meaningless.

One can easily reverse the question and ask if morality can work with a deity. Why are religious laws moral ? What do the arbitrary seeming prescriptions of an alleged all-mighty creator have to do with right or wrong ?
If all Christians got a vision tomorrow that they each have to bludgeon two red headed children to death, would you do it ? Would the killing of children of a specific phenotype with blunt objects become a moral act overnight ? If you can really say that all morality comes from God and you would kill children in this scenarion, you're a psycho.
If you say that killing children would still be wrong, you acknowledge that morality exists independently from a supposed supreme being.
Which one is it ?

Anyone's free to throw in their opinion into the ring, that's the beauty of it.

If you think Germany's abortion laws are better than Alabama's, that's your opinion to have and share, and if your opinion actually follows some sort of a logical line of thought, and is based on solid data, then you might very well have an opinion worth listening to.

We don't need no God for morality. "All we need is eachother." Etruscans 5:33

That post was so damn confusing with that avatar.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Ways morality could work without a divine being/general crashcourse in the awesome field of meta-ethics:

1. Non-cognitivism says that whenever we say that "x is wrong" we aren't making a genuine proposition and hence cannot be true nor false.
- Emotivism (cf. AJ Ayer) states that whenever we say that "x is wrong" what we are actually saying is "boooooo x".
- Alternatively, universal prescriptivism (cf. RM Hare) states that propositions, such as "x is wrong" is really saying "don't do x". Note that universal prescriptivism is compatible with most theories of moral universalism.

So...Non-cognitivism says that the question of morality is meaningless, then. That there is no right or wrong?

Emotivism is then essentially completely up to the individual?

2. Error theory (cf. JL Mackie) states that, while all moral propositions are real, they are all false, as a form and subfield of moral nihilism.

Which then comes down to there is no right or wrong, or that at least what we do doesn't matter in the slightest.

3. Moral realism states that moral propositions are mind-independent facts, i.e. truths that exist out in the world.
- Naturalism is something I don't have a firm grasp on, but it essentially encompasses most (if not all) consequentialist and utilitarian theories by stating that "goodness" is some reducible property (for utilitarians, "goodness" reduces to pleasure/lack of pain/happiness/etc.)
- Non-naturalism (cf. GE Moore) is the opposite. It states that "goodness" is some sort of Thing out in the world and that we have a priori knowledge of them. May run aground on the naturalistic fallacy.

See, I don't see how moral realism could be true without a deity or higher power or "authority" to create the truths.

4. Moral subjectivism is one opposite of moral realism. It states that norms and culture create "right" and "wrong".
- Divine command theory (cf. Robert Adams) is one form of moral subjectivism (although it is important to note it is also a moral univeralist theory). The idea has been around since the ancient Greeks, when Socrates asked Euthyphro, essentially, "is Good good because the Gods make it good or is Good good because the Gods do it?" So, thecrazyscot, I suppose a good place to begin discussion is with what Socrates asked: does Good make God or does God make Good?

A great question but ultimately for us mortals, if God exists does it really matter?

 

[warpus]

The problem is that when someone says that something is "right" or "wrong", a universal statement is being made, not only about your personal morality, but a basic assumption about everyone else's as well.

Well yes, we have to agree on what is moral and what isn't, generally speaking. That's why we discuss these things so that we can hopefully land on the same page. Sometimes we can't, but that's life.

Why would logic and data be what makes an opinion worth listening to? Plenty of what many people call "horrific acts" or "war crimes" can be backed up with logic.

Go ahead and try to convince me that genocide is moral. If you can do so using a well reasoned and logically sound argument, backed up by data, than I will listen to your point of view and consider it. I might not accept it, but I will listen to it.

I have a feeling you won't be able to convince me or most other people that genocide is moral, however. I would be impressed if you could make a strong case for it or even a not-so-weak one.

 

[JollyRoger]

Go ahead and try to convince me that genocide is moral. If you can do so using a well reasoned and logically sound argument, backed up by data, than I will listen to your point of view and consider it. I might not accept it, but I will listen to it.

I have a feeling you won't be able to convince me or most other people that genocide is moral, however. I would be impressed if you could make a strong case for it or even a not-so-weak one.

If you assume that morality comes from a deity as step one in the logical chain, then the Book of Joshua does the rest for you.

 

[thecrazyscot]

The problem is that when someone says that some religion's system of morality is "right" or "wrong", a universal statement is being made, not only about that religion's morality, but a basic assumption about should be everyone else's as well.

Why would religion be what makes an opinion worth listening to? Plenty of what many people call "horrific acts" or "war crimes" have been backed up with religious doctrine.

Indeed. You will find that most religions, if you check their fundamental beliefs, are incompatible with any other religion. Most religions require the complete rejection of others. Christianity, for example, assumes that only the Christian God exists - to believe otherwise would be to reject Christianity, in traditional doctrine.

To believe that there is a God who established right and wrong is to believe that everyone is eternally subject to them, regardless if anyone else disagrees.

One can easily reverse the question and ask if morality can work with a deity. Why are religious laws moral ? What do the arbitrary seeming prescriptions of an alleged all-mighty creator have to do with right or wrong ?

This is an excellent question. My answer would be that if an all-mighty deity does exist and establishes standards of right and wrong behavior and/or actions, then it has literally everything to do with it.

If all Christians got a vision tomorrow that they each have to bludgeon two red headed children to death, would you do it ? Would the killing of children of a specific phenotype with blunt objects become a moral act overnight ? If you can really say that all morality comes from God and you would kill children in this scenarion, you're a psycho.

That gets into questions of the nature of God. Is God capricious or changeable? Then yes, whatever he says goes, even when he changes his mind.

Is God unchangeable? Can he contradict his nature? If so, then any vision contradicting an established law could not be from him.

If you say that killing children would still be wrong, you acknowledge that morality exists independently from a supposed supreme being.
Which one is it ?

If morality exists independently from a supreme being, where does it come from? If you say it's wrong because it just feels wrong to you, then that's just your opinion, which is meaningless to anyone else.

If you say that it is wrong because it just is, then you are acknowledging the existence of a universal code of behavior, which leads back to the question, where does it come from?