Does morality work without a deity?

[Tahuti]

Every morality has a motivation, a goal that has to be achieved. If you can convince people a deity exist, you still need to convince them that deity has good goals.

 

[Berzerker]

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

universal desires - nobody wants to be murdered therefore murder is immoral

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.

Which god, the OT thug who commands genocide and slavery or the NT version called Jesus?

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.

You're an individual with a belief system, your actions may or may not be justified but your god has nothing to do with it. Are slavery and genocide moral because you chose to believe in a god who ordered those crimes?

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

Either the community is right or its wrong. Does the universal desire to live trump an individual's desire to murder everyone? I think so...

What makes, to use a current example, ISIS worse or better than anyone else?

They're murderers, their hypocrisy makes them worse. You're a Christian, didn't Jesus condemn the hypocrites?

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?

What if the person who leaves is right? What if they leave a band of thugs to lead a peaceful existence?

edit: course I just said morality is based on universal desires so an individual leaving the commune is trumped well, the community I'm thinking of is far bigger than a village

 

[madviking]

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?

Well "right" and "wrong" on an individualistic level still exist, hence the answer to the second question here is "essentially". You could still say, earnestly, that "x is wrong". It just has no real persuasive power as it can be reduced to either the two subfields I mentioned.

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

I suppose you're a mathematical realist/universalist. Meaning that numbers pretty much exist and are pretty much real. But I suppose do not reckon that a deity or higher power or "authority" is necessary to create the truths of mathematics. Hence, 2+2=4 is true whether God exists or not and atheist mathematics need not fear that what they're working on is suddenly invalidated.

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

Well yes, it does. Depending on which horn of the dilemma you choose, a whole suite of problems crop up.

a. "Good makes God"

Questions of sovereignty ("Well, huh, clearly there is something above God now."), omnipotence ("Well, huh, clearly God is limited in His actions by this Strange Moral Force."), and the existence of God ("Well, huh, if we have this Strange Moral Force, why do we need God?") arise, all of which have no good answer for you, I take it.

b. "God makes Good"

Here, questions of morality ("Well, huh, if Good is just whatever God says it is [i.e. it's arbitrary], why do Good?", anarchy ("Well, huh, if Good is arbitrarily defined by God, couldn't He just make 'inflict pain onto others' moral?") and, again, the existence of God ("Well, huh, if Good is arbitrary, wouldn't that betray God's status as infinitely wise and rational?") crop up, which also have no good answers.

So yes, it the Euthyphro dilemma is a real pita.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Collective morality cannot exist without authority. Individual morality is up to the individual, so is not limited in form. I have mine, without benefit of deity, but do not impose it as I claim no authority, and you may not recognize its form as moral. Your morality you do not have the authority to impose on me, unless I accept your deity, which I do not.

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

So deity = communal construct and we are back to the weaknesses you pointed out in the OP.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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.

But what if someone lands on a very different page from yours? An antithetical page, even?

Do you tolerate racism? Sexism? Xenophobia? Discrimination?

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.

Why would I even try? I don't believe it is moral. I believe it is incredibly immoral, but I also believe that it's only wrong because God has said "thou shalt not murder".

I don't believe a strong case CAN be made for it, because I believe in a universal moral law. If it didn't exist, than this would make perfect sense: If a leader of a tribe wanted to wipe out another tribe to give his tribe more farmland or better access to water, that would be perfectly logical to him and his people.

 

[JollyRoger]

But what if someone lands on a very different page from yours? An antithetical page, even?

Do you tolerate racism? Sexism? Xenophobia? Discrimination?

Under the deity construct, if that what your good books tells you to tolerate, do you? Because the good book for Christians contains a good dose of all of that.

 

[warpus]

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.

I did say "convince me", not "convince a like-minded Christian"

But what if someone lands on a very different page from yours? An antithetical page, even?

Do you tolerate racism? Sexism? Xenophobia? Discrimination?

No, because these things are immoral.

If someone's worked out that they are indeed moral, and they can walk me through their logic, and it makes sense, then I'm willing to change my mind. But that's rarely, if ever, going to happen.

Case in point - I accept that sexism in some cases is acceptable, such as female-only gyms or citizenship swearing-in ceremonies. I've been convinced that this is a compromise that makes sense, for various reasons.

Why would I even try?

Well then, that settles the question of genocide - we seem to both agree that it is immoral.

You were asking me what we'd do if there is conflict between two moral systems - in this case there isn't.. but say that there was.. that's what my question was pointing to.

 

[Berzerker]

if morality comes from universal desires then it would seem the creator of existence instilled these desires in us

on the other hand existence aint what I'd call moral, its brutal and haphazard with individuals serving as cannon fodder to fuel life. But maybe that is moral... Maybe we as individuals are largely irrelevant and even life can be exterminated in the blink of an eye without involving a moral "judgement".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If someone's worked out that they are indeed moral, and they can walk me through their logic, and it makes sense, then I'm willing to change my mind. But that's rarely, if ever, going to happen.

How did you arrive at morality has to be logically sustainable?

I make no pretense that my morality is logical. I cannot use logic as authority to impose it on you.

 

[warpus]

How did you arrive at morality has to be logically sustainable?

I don't see a way around it. If you're going to say that an act is immoral - you have to justify that in some way.

For example: "Murder is wrong, because dying sucks." Incredibly rudimentary and basic, but you get the idea.

If you're going to say: "This is immoral for no reason whatsoever".. then.. that's great, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you're going to need some community support for your idea to take hold. And that ain't going to happen unless you have some logic behind what you're saying.

Now if that logic is based on the Bible, that's fine.. for a theocracy. We live in secular countries, for the most part, so your logic better be based on something else, unless you live in theocracy that is.. For example - "Oh hey, look, passing this law is going to make things better, not worse.". < Again, very simplified, but you get the idea.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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.

Under the deity construct, if that what your good books tells you to tolerate, do you? Because the good book for Christians contains a good dose of all of that.

I'm not interested in discussing your criticisms of the Bible in this thread. Perhaps in another

So deity = communal construct and we are back to the weaknesses you pointed out in the OP.

If there is in fact a supreme deity, then calling him a communal construct is irrelevant. In most monotheistic religions, God directly revealed himself to humanity - so it would not be a communal construct.

Your assumption is that God is a communal construct, mine is that He is not. Nevertheless, I am trying to understand an opposing point of view within a specific framework for discussion, and you are not. This question is distracting from my original question, and there are plenty of threads already dealing with the existence of God.

I will be happy to respond to posts which don't hijack the discussion.

 

[FredLC]

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

If we are, we are doing it wrong.

I suppose theoretically one could argue that an authority that gives clear, unequivocal commands, could be the source of a moral preset. We are yet to meet this deity, though; all "gods" we know are nothing if not contradictory, so even if we were to accept their authority, people still have margins to interpret the wildest variations in behavior as morally mandated.

That is why wildly different people, from pacifists to jihadists, to people who adopt sick babies to people who beat homossexuals to death, consider themselves moral and religiously justified.

Whatever criteria we use to judge these actions need to be external. And I know that was always your point, but I felt it needed the elaboration for the purposes of the thread.

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?

Yes, yes; often these debates boil down to the homework on the subject not have been done. Alas, these issues are ancient, but I feel their inconclusiveness are no longer as crippling as in Socrates' time. Pragmatism/utilitarianism have a few things to say here, just like it had about Plato's cave, what brings me to the last part of my reply:

Where does the concept of "right and wrong" come from?This thread isn't meant to discuss whether or not a deity exists, but the basis of morality.

From a humanitarian POV, morality have to do with the well being of humans. In fact, this is somewhat evident, even if few people have the language to elaborate. Actions are judged on their potential to maximize happiness or minimize suffering.

If you are talking about something different than assessing suffering, I don't know what you are talking about when you speak of morality. Why we find abhorrent to smash a child's skull, but not a rock? Because one action can lead to suffering, and the other cannot.

Therein enters utilitarism. Knowing what constitutes suffering is not arbitrary, but the result of millennia of experience; of interactions between humans showing what happenstances people aspired to see being repeated in their lives, and what circumstances they aspire being avoided. We are yet to know of societies that consider rape, theft, slavery or murder normal events, but all societies value initiative, compassion, freedom and nurturing.

Why? because experience showed that values such as the previous disrupts society and maximize unhappiness; the latter, OTOH, optimizes societies and increases happiness. So, we pragmatically elect the later as values to be encourage and upheld, and the previous to be avoided and discouraged.

The fact that there is variation in what exactly constitutes a cause of happiness, or unhappiness, is not a challenge to this viewpoint. Because society is a plural body, the treatment is statistical. Of course you can probably find some people who have wet dreams about anal rape, or enjoy being beaten, or don't mind being mistreated or deprived; however, trends emerge from the viewing of the whole, and everybody is comfortable knowing whether a given society accepts or forbids a given behavior.

Sam Harris put it better than me; he said - and I am paraphrasing here - "the fact that there are disagreement between about what constitutes good food - some people like chocolate, others like grapefruit, others like pig meat - does not prevent us from knowing a clear distinction between food and poison; morality is the same, and we know what is bad for us".

Do notice that I included "slavery" as an example of bad behavior. This was deliberated, I know someone will object that there were societies that did endorse slavery, ours included. So, is this proof that we can't know right from wrong without divine assistance?

The most obvious reply is that if one believes in divine command morality, that person has to deal with the fact that their supposed divine authority was present when these events happened, and it did not prevent them.

But the interesting reply here is that this is an example of the ever-advancing zeitgeist of society. As I said, morality is a work in progress, and the idea of slavery is a behavior that is being rescinded little by little in the world; originally, you could enslave your neighbors; later, just enemies or criminals; than just people from other nations; than just people "without souls", as the catholic church referred to African natives during the ages of colonization. Now, nobody can be legally enslaved.

Do noticed that even societies that endorsed slavery never considered it something desireable; they always knew it was a blight, but considered it something that was possible to impose on those who fell out of society's grace; but enslaving a Son of Judea? or a Roman noble? or a white man? Unimaginable!

This is a beautiful, if tragic, proof of my point; of society learning from its mistakes, to grant certain values as universal and unalienable, even for those we don't know or like.

And new values will come. We are seeing changes already in the treatment of sexual freedom. Many consider that granting more rights to animals capable of feeling joy or pain, or have limited culture, might be the next moral milestone. I don't know, but today, nobody would find it funny to see a cat being skinned and boiled alive, and yet, in 18th century France, there were shows that were exactly that, under the idea that they were automatons, incapable of pain, just going through the motions. So torturing them was no big deal, just some amusing show of automatic responses.

But we learn, and we adapt to that learning. We review our concepts and increase our means of promoting and generalizing happiness. So, where does morality come from if not from god? It comes from our ever continuing and ever improving collective effort to minimize pain and maximize pleasure to an increasing number of subjects.

And this is why I actually consider morality harder, not easier, in a deity-centered approach to ethics; because when you take humanity from the center, you are bound to arbitrarily following commands that are dissociated with the unnecessary pain and suffering they cause. We became blind to it and lose perspective when that happens. And that is why people are able to throw airplanes into buildings, and try to forbid gay marriage, all based in interpretations of their divine texts. Because for them it's not the people that matter, but the Deity, in a misguided, if well meaning, conception that taking away lives, and freedoms, is a convoluted path for a greater happiness.

This is the quintessential "path to hell paved with good intentions", and a clear signal that morality is better when we forget gods and think of people. For effect, let me end with a quote from Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Regards .

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see a way around it. If you're going to say that an act is immoral - you have to justify that in some way.

For example: "Murder is wrong, because dying sucks." Incredibly rudimentary and basic, but you get the idea.

If you're going to say: "This is immoral for no reason whatsoever".. then.. that's great, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you're going to need some community support for your idea to take hold. And that ain't going to happen unless you have some logic behind what you're saying.

Now if that logic is based on the Bible, that's fine.. for a theocracy. We live in secular countries, for the most part, so your logic better be based on something else, unless you live in theocracy that is.. For example - "Oh hey, look, passing this law is going to make things better, not worse.". < Again, very simplified, but you get the idea.

If you look back you will see that I started out saying that communal morality may require authority, but individual morality does not. I'm not the least bit interested in "community support" or "having my idea take hold". Why should I be? I am quite satisfied with my morality, and totally unconcerned about imposing it on anyone else.

 

[thecrazyscot]

universal desires - nobody wants to be murdered therefore murder is immoral

Nobody wants to lose, therefore losing is immoral.
Nobody wants to die, therefore dying is immoral.
Nobody wants to have their feelings hurt, therefore having your feelings hurt is immoral.
Nobody wants to wait in line, therefore waiting in line is immoral.

Basing morality on "universal desires" can justify anything. And what happens when two desires conflict?

You're an individual with a belief system, your actions may or may not be justified but your god has nothing to do with it. Are slavery and genocide moral because you chose to believe in a god who ordered those crimes?

That's just the thing. God has everything to do with it. If God created the moral standard, then whatever he says goes! Whatever I do or do not believe has no relevance to what is actually right or wrong. He is the supreme being, I am the created being living in a universe bound entirely by his laws.

This, of course, ends up making the nature of God very important.

Either the community is right or its wrong. Does the universal desire to live trump an individual's desire to murder everyone? I think so...

Why? Who says?

They're murderers, their hypocrisy makes them worse. You're a Christian, didn't Jesus condemn the hypocrites?

Hypocrisy is only "wrong" if there is a moral standard that says so.

You do realize this was an example for the sake of discussion, right? As a Christian, I find ISIS reprehensible.

What if the person who leaves is right? What if they leave a band of thugs to lead a peaceful existence?

If morality isn't established beyond human authority, this question is meaningless, because whatever anyone does is simply an action with no moral consequences.

I suppose you're a mathematical realist/universalist. Meaning that numbers pretty much exist and are pretty much real. But I suppose do not reckon that a deity or higher power or "authority" is necessary to create the truths of mathematics. Hence, 2+2=4 is true whether God exists or not and atheist mathematics need not fear that what they're working on is suddenly invalidated.

I believe that everything stems from the nature of God and that universal physical and mathematical laws exist because he put them in place. I think it would be inconsistent of me to believe otherwise (I believe ).

Well yes, it does. Depending on which horn of the dilemma you choose, a whole suite of problems crop up.

a. "Good makes God"

Questions of sovereignty ("Well, huh, clearly there is something above God now."), omnipotence ("Well, huh, clearly God is limited in His actions by this Strange Moral Force."), and the existence of God ("Well, huh, if we have this Strange Moral Force, why do we need God?") arise, all of which have no good answer for you, I take it.

b. "God makes Good"

Here, questions of morality ("Well, huh, if Good is just whatever God says it is [i.e. it's arbitrary], why do Good?", anarchy ("Well, huh, if Good is arbitrarily defined by God, couldn't He just make 'inflict pain onto others' moral?") and, again, the existence of God ("Well, huh, if Good is arbitrary, wouldn't that betray God's status as infinitely wise and rational?") crop up, which also have no good answers.

So yes, it the Euthyphro dilemma is a real pita.

Ah, thank you for the explanation. If moral forces exist above God, my question would then be, where did they come from? It devolves into an endless cycle. I can see how both sides are a pita indeed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Your assumption is that God is a communal construct, mine is that He is not. Nevertheless, I am trying to understand an opposing point of view within a specific framework for discussion, and you are not. This question is distracting from my original question, and there are plenty of threads already dealing with the existence of God.

I will be happy to respond to posts which don't hijack the discussion.

You are talking about God - I am talking about gods - since there have been many over the years, then most (if they really don't exist) are mere community constructs. Then it comes down to guessing who is right about which god or gods exist.

Edit: and this thread has been productive, if for nothing else, summoning a deity of the CFCOT pantheon, FredLC.

 

[FredLC]

I came from work early today and had some free time...

 

[Darkflight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fwkvTD6e_I

Sam Harris talks about this here. It's about and hour long with about 40 minutes of Q&A after that.

 

[thecrazyscot]

No, because these things are immoral.

If someone's worked out that they are indeed moral, and they can walk me through their logic, and it makes sense, then I'm willing to change my mind. But that's rarely, if ever, going to happen.

Case in point - I accept that sexism in some cases is acceptable, such as female-only gyms or citizenship swearing-in ceremonies. I've been convinced that this is a compromise that makes sense, for various reasons.

But what makes them immoral? To me, the only thing that makes sense is a higher authority which established the morality. Otherwise, there's no reason any of those are "wrong".

Sure, the community I'm currently in may say so, but what gives them authority over me? What basis does the community use to establish their decisions?

I don't see a way around it. If you're going to say that an act is immoral - you have to justify that in some way.

For example: "Murder is wrong, because dying sucks." Incredibly rudimentary and basic, but you get the idea.

If you're going to say: "This is immoral for no reason whatsoever".. then.. that's great, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you're going to need some community support for your idea to take hold. And that ain't going to happen unless you have some logic behind what you're saying.

Now if that logic is based on the Bible, that's fine.. for a theocracy. We live in secular countries, for the most part, so your logic better be based on something else, unless you live in theocracy that is.. For example - "Oh hey, look, passing this law is going to make things better, not worse.". < Again, very simplified, but you get the idea.

Without a higher standard of morality other than logic, though, you could just as easily say something like "I find killing fun, therefore it's right".

Even secular countries do not base their laws entirely on logic and data. Laws regarding basic morality seem to be simply assumed.

What I'm trying to get at is why are they assumed? What basis does anyone have for condemning, judging, or shaming anyone?

 

[madviking]

I believe that everything stems from the nature of God and that universal physical and mathematical laws exist because he put them in place. I think it would be inconsistent of me to believe otherwise (I believe ).

Well it would be inconsistently if you believed that math and morality both could stand by themselves. But, as I mentioned, the question of the atheist mathematician becomes an interesting one. I could surmise that you could say "the atheist mathematician is not truly an atheist because with divinely-inspired mathematics", which could be an answer, it's just not a particularly persuasive one. As such, the atheist mathematician could reply "Well, God can be a sufficient condition for mathematics to be true, but not necessary (i.e. God just one of many ways for mathematics to be true)". Now, you're stuck in a pretty bad position of trying to defend God's existence being necessary and sufficient for the truth of mathematics (i.e. "mathematics is true if and only if God exists").

A viable way to maintain the existence of God without having to resort to this line of thinking is to, essentially take the "God is Good" horn of the dilemma, as opposed to the "Good is God" line of thinking mentioned in the previous paragraph. Again, this is only if we can analogize mathematics with morality.

Ah, thank you for the explanation. If moral forces exist above God, my question would then be, where did they come from? It devolves into an endless cycle.

That question you posed is one reason that the "God is Good" horn is unappealing.

Your previous quote is why the "Good is God" horn is also unappealing.

I can see how both sides are a pita indeed.

And without accepting either of the horns, "God being necessary and sufficient for morality" becomes a shaky position.