Morality without God

[Jolly_Penguin]

Maybe some theists say that you can't be moral without God but I think the actual argument is by what authority can one declare morality or immorality other than God?

Empathy, fairness, and social contract.

The confusion of obedience to power for morality is actually what scares me most about religion.

 

[Random Person]

Maybe some theists say that you can't be moral without God but I think the actual argument is by what authority can one declare morality or immorality other than God?

Empathy, fairness, and social contract.

The confusion of obedience to power for morality is actually what scares me most about religion.

That was my original point. Wemay simply ignore religious directives but you and I are powerless to ignore governmental ones.

 

[Atheos]

Empathy, fairness, and social contract.

The confusion of obedience to power for morality is actually what scares me most about religion.

That was my original point. Wemay simply ignore religious directives but you and I are powerless to ignore governmental ones.

That's only true to the extent government has power and resources to enforce such directives. Many people ignore governmental directives and get away with it. A religious directive backed by an omniscient god who has unlimited power and resources and is going to get you sooner or later is a different matter altogether.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe some theists say that you can't be moral without God but I think the actual argument is by what authority can one declare morality or immorality other than God?

Any discussion of morality always stumbles on the question of authority.

There is a paradox in human nature that demands, "Who said so?" and the response is always "Because I said so." It's easier (and more convincing) to cite some great authority/rule giver/Godhead/PYL, than to argue that some action is right or wrong.

The problem of accepting a moral code as dictated by an independent authority is the code has to be codified. This seems obvious, but it means the code is frozen in time. There was a time when stealing a sheep could mean serious hardship for the shepherd and his family. The fact it was difficult to prevent theft compounded the problem. Sheep thieves were put to death, mostly for the deterrent, not because sheep were that valuable. It was a reasonable solution to the problem.

In a modern society, we have a huge police system to deal with thieves and for the most part take the burden of stopping thievery off our shoulders. As a result, killing a thief seems overkill. If we stuck with the written code, car thieves would be put to death.

Our comfort with citing authority for our moral decisions will always push us to do things which no longer serve the purpose of a moral code, which is to provide a set of guidelines for people to live in peace, safety, and cooperation with one another.

 

[Random Person]

That was my original point. Wemay simply ignore religious directives but you and I are powerless to ignore governmental ones.

That's only true to the extent government has power and resources to enforce such directives. Many people ignore governmental directives and get away with it. A religious directive backed by an omniscient god who has unlimited power and resources and is going to get you sooner or later is a different matter altogether.

How is it going to get me sooner or later? If I don't give to the Church nothing happens. I don't give to the government they throw in the joint.

 

[Random Person]

Maybe some theists say that you can't be moral without God but I think the actual argument is by what authority can one declare morality or immorality other than God?

Any discussion of morality always stumbles on the question of authority.

There is a paradox in human nature that demands, "Who said so?" and the response is always "Because I said so." It's easier (and more convincing) to cite some great authority/rule giver/Godhead/PYL, than to argue that some action is right or wrong.

The problem of accepting a moral code as dictated by an independent authority is the code has to be codified. This seems obvious, but it means the code is frozen in time. There was a time when stealing a sheep could mean serious hardship for the shepherd and his family. The fact it was difficult to prevent theft compounded the problem. Sheep thieves were put to death, mostly for the deterrent, not because sheep were that valuable. It was a reasonable solution to the problem.

In a modern society, we have a huge police system to deal with thieves and for the most part take the burden of stopping thievery off our shoulders. As a result, killing a thief seems overkill. If we stuck with the written code, car thieves would be put to death.

Our comfort with citing authority for our moral decisions will always push us to do things which no longer serve the purpose of a moral code, which is to provide a set of guidelines for people to live in peace, safety, and cooperation with one another.

You seem to be arguing against the authority of a moral code while claiming the one we have now is just right.

I think the idea that we are moral is a delusion that we use to comfort ourselves.

 

[Bronzeage]

Any discussion of morality always stumbles on the question of authority.

There is a paradox in human nature that demands, "Who said so?" and the response is always "Because I said so." It's easier (and more convincing) to cite some great authority/rule giver/Godhead/PYL, than to argue that some action is right or wrong.

The problem of accepting a moral code as dictated by an independent authority is the code has to be codified. This seems obvious, but it means the code is frozen in time. There was a time when stealing a sheep could mean serious hardship for the shepherd and his family. The fact it was difficult to prevent theft compounded the problem. Sheep thieves were put to death, mostly for the deterrent, not because sheep were that valuable. It was a reasonable solution to the problem.

In a modern society, we have a huge police system to deal with thieves and for the most part take the burden of stopping thievery off our shoulders. As a result, killing a thief seems overkill. If we stuck with the written code, car thieves would be put to death.

Our comfort with citing authority for our moral decisions will always push us to do things which no longer serve the purpose of a moral code, which is to provide a set of guidelines for people to live in peace, safety, and cooperation with one another.

You seem to be arguing against the authority of a moral code while claiming the one we have now is just right.

I think the idea that we are moral is a delusion that we use to comfort ourselves.

Do you steal or murder as a normal part of your day? No? Why not?


You misunderstand, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger. We've lived for so long in cultures which claim their moral code is prescribed by God(or some god), it's easy to assume the absence of such a god means the absence of morality.

The authority of a moral code comes from the cooperation of enough people who accept the precepts of the code, that it becomes an effective deterrent to bad behavior and encourages good behavior.

As I said in a previous post, the fine points of a code depend upon the environment and the hardships of life. A code is very slow to react as life gets easier. When some aspect of the old code cracks, a new aspect replaces it. We no longer stone adulteresses. At this point in time, we barely raise our eyebrows at them.

That's a marked change in our moral code. Adulteresses aren't held up as virtuous, but our moral code no longer requires us to punish them. What was once the public's business has become more of a "mind your own business," kind of thing.

 

[Atheos]

That's only true to the extent government has power and resources to enforce such directives. Many people ignore governmental directives and get away with it. A religious directive backed by an omniscient god who has unlimited power and resources and is going to get you sooner or later is a different matter altogether.

How is it going to get me sooner or later? If I don't give to the Church nothing happens. I don't give to the government they throw in the joint.

They don't always throw folks in the joint for tax evasion, they have to catch them. What I said about a god who's going to get you sooner or later only applies to certain variants of belief in a christian god. However the state I live in (Tennessee, USA) still has a clause in the state constitution prohibiting people from holding public office who do not believe in a god complete with an afterlife that "includes a system of rewards and punishments." Evidently these founding fathers believed that if you weren't afraid god was going to get you you'd be a subversive ax murderer.

 

[Random Person]

You seem to be arguing against the authority of a moral code while claiming the one we have now is just right.

I think the idea that we are moral is a delusion that we use to comfort ourselves.

Do you steal or murder as a normal part of your day? No? Why not?


You misunderstand, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger. We've lived for so long in cultures which claim their moral code is prescribed by God(or some god), it's easy to assume the absence of such a god means the absence of morality.

The authority of a moral code comes from the cooperation of enough people who accept the precepts of the code, that it becomes an effective deterrent to bad behavior and encourages good behavior.

As I said in a previous post, the fine points of a code depend upon the environment and the hardships of life. A code is very slow to react as life gets easier. When some aspect of the old code cracks, a new aspect replaces it. We no longer stone adulteresses. At this point in time, we barely raise our eyebrows at them.

That's a marked change in our moral code. Adulteresses aren't held up as virtuous, but our moral code no longer requires us to punish them. What was once the public's business has become more of a "mind your own business," kind of thing.

I comply with the code against stealing and murder out of enlightened self interest. Your cooperation theory works until people can find a way to enhance their circumstances without getting caught.

 

[Random Person]

How is it going to get me sooner or later? If I don't give to the Church nothing happens. I don't give to the government they throw in the joint.

They don't always throw folks in the joint for tax evasion, they have to catch them. What I said about a god who's going to get you sooner or later only applies to certain variants of belief in a christian god. However the state I live in (Tennessee, USA) still has a clause in the state constitution prohibiting people from holding public office who do not believe in a god complete with an afterlife that "includes a system of rewards and punishments." Evidently these founding fathers believed that if you weren't afraid god was going to get you you'd be a subversive ax murderer.

Sure, people may not get caught evading taxes and some may not even face prison time if they do but the point is that there is the possibility of punishment if they do. There is no equivalent in regards to not tithing or giving to a church.

If a non-believer wanted to run for office in your state then the unconstitutional law would get rescinded, although it's hard to imagine a candidate with enough appeal to overcome the godless position in TN.

 

[Bronzeage]

Do you steal or murder as a normal part of your day? No? Why not?


You misunderstand, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger. We've lived for so long in cultures which claim their moral code is prescribed by God(or some god), it's easy to assume the absence of such a god means the absence of morality.

The authority of a moral code comes from the cooperation of enough people who accept the precepts of the code, that it becomes an effective deterrent to bad behavior and encourages good behavior.

As I said in a previous post, the fine points of a code depend upon the environment and the hardships of life. A code is very slow to react as life gets easier. When some aspect of the old code cracks, a new aspect replaces it. We no longer stone adulteresses. At this point in time, we barely raise our eyebrows at them.

That's a marked change in our moral code. Adulteresses aren't held up as virtuous, but our moral code no longer requires us to punish them. What was once the public's business has become more of a "mind your own business," kind of thing.

I comply with the code against stealing and murder out of enlightened self interest. Your cooperation theory works until people can find a way to enhance their circumstances without getting caught.

What the fuck is enlightened self interest? The moral code contains two elements. The first is stuff you shouldn't do. Don't kill your friends and don't steal your friends stuff is most of that. The second element says what we're going to do to people who kill friends and steal their stuff.

What you call enlightened self interest is your cooperation. There is a misconception that living by a moral code somehow makes you a good person. That's just more of the morality from authority bullshit. It doesn't matter if you've decided life is sacred, or you just want to avoid the penalty for murder and theft. If you avoid killing and stealing, it works out the same and you motives are irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with being good or bad.

 

[Atheos]

They don't always throw folks in the joint for tax evasion, they have to catch them. What I said about a god who's going to get you sooner or later only applies to certain variants of belief in a christian god. However the state I live in (Tennessee, USA) still has a clause in the state constitution prohibiting people from holding public office who do not believe in a god complete with an afterlife that "includes a system of rewards and punishments." Evidently these founding fathers believed that if you weren't afraid god was going to get you you'd be a subversive ax murderer.

Sure, people may not get caught evading taxes and some may not even face prison time if they do but the point is that there is the possibility of punishment if they do. There is no equivalent in regards to not tithing or giving to a church.

If a non-believer wanted to run for office in your state then the unconstitutional law would get rescinded, although it's hard to imagine a candidate with enough appeal to overcome the godless position in TN.

I don't think I ever said anything about specifics such as tithing vs tax evasion anyway, certainly not at first. We're chasing a red herring as far as I'm concerned.

Is it your argument that a human government would pose a greater concern about consequences than a god such as I described (assuming it existed?)

 

[Random Person]

I comply with the code against stealing and murder out of enlightened self interest. Your cooperation theory works until people can find a way to enhance their circumstances without getting caught.

What the fuck is enlightened self interest? The moral code contains two elements. The first is stuff you shouldn't do. Don't kill your friends and don't steal your friends stuff is most of that. The second element says what we're going to do to people who kill friends and steal their stuff.

What you call enlightened self interest is your cooperation. There is a misconception that living by a moral code somehow makes you a good person. That's just more of the morality from authority bullshit. It doesn't matter if you've decided life is sacred, or you just want to avoid the penalty for murder and theft. If you avoid killing and stealing, it works out the same and you motives are irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with being good or bad.

Enlightened self interest id not stealing your neighbors shit because the consequences would be greater than the reward. It seems like you are beginning to understand that.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, people may not get caught evading taxes and some may not even face prison time if they do but the point is that there is the possibility of punishment if they do. There is no equivalent in regards to not tithing or giving to a church.

If a non-believer wanted to run for office in your state then the unconstitutional law would get rescinded, although it's hard to imagine a candidate with enough appeal to overcome the godless position in TN.

I don't think I ever said anything about specifics such as tithing vs tax evasion anyway, certainly not at first. We're chasing a red herring as far as I'm concerned.

Is it your argument that a human government would pose a greater concern about consequences than a god such as I described (assuming it existed?)

I assume the "would" qualifier is if you believed that a god existed. If you don't then you need only obey the government.