Morality without God

[Ramaraksha]

Bronzeage makes some cogent points.

Modern civilization, with its huge societies and multicultural demographics, grates on the tribalism and differential moral consideration hard-wired into our psychology over millions of years as hunter-gatherers. We're not likely to overcome this tribalism till we recognize its dysfunctional footprint in our own attitudes and behaviors.

I am not so sure - FYI - the dominant religions are not millions of years old - also tribalism didn't come from hunter-gatherers - all these ideas came after people settled down, found agriculture

More people need to speak up and that is the problem - not enough do

 

[untermensche]

Without a god I would think slapping my crying baby was the same as feeding it.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is a storybook scenario, which is very improbable, except for the rape, pillage, and plunder.

A King who is too far away to enforce his law and collect his taxes, is by definition, not the King of that particular place. If a King who could command a troupe of mounted soldiers was not intimidating enough, the threat of hell and damnation is not much of a deterrent.

??? storybook scenario? what are you talking about? It doesn't take much imagination to think of how people lived back in the day - even today in villages little farm houses surrounded by huge farms - even today some criminals can rape and kill a farmer without anyone knowing. Back in the day - Remember no phones, no internet, no way to call for help - there is a reason why people back in the day armed themselves

A King with a mounted troupe? Again what? did you really write this? Even today with all the fast cars and phones, if you call for help, you think the police will come in time? And you think the King lives right around the corner with all his troops ready to help?

"A King who is too far away to enforce his law and collect his taxes, is by definition, not the King of that particular place" - you miss the point here - it's not about whether the king is legitimate or not - it's about the total lack of law and order that our ancients suffered under. Life was quite terrible back in the day - you and i if we could go back may not last a day

I'm afraid I don't have a real response to this rambling comment, except to reiterate that you understanding of human history and human nature is a story book scenario, created to support your thesis.

 

[another1]

The problem here is that more the media and intellectuals ignore this problem, the hate will continue to fester

I don't think anyone is ignoring any problem purposely. Like Bronzeage said the world warming to communicate better with itself. The media may be ignoring problems but basic people are apparently able to fill in the gaps cooperatively now. So other than the media I don't think people are ignoring problems like Hitler, slavery, or Christianity.

France is being emptied of its jews - still Hitler?

I didn't know about this recent atrocity against Jews. France MUST be stopped. Ban French fries idk. Not understanding that part.

Aaaah! Animals are replaceble - what a sick thought. We are one type of animal too you know. We may have a disconnect here - i am against suffering as a whole, you only seem to care if it happens to your loved ones?

Animals respawn on their own. Even humans. But I didn't say humans are replaceable. I don't support suffering anymore than you do. I suffer just to think about it actually. But yes, my loved ones are more important to me than anyone else. That isn't the case for you?

 

[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?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Without a god I would think slapping my crying baby was the same as feeding it.

Basically you are saying your morals don't come from within, from society - read my opening post - Point No.1 - you nailed it! Without a God, rape and having sex is the same to you? Without God borrowing money and stealing it is the same to you?

 

[Ramaraksha]

I'm afraid I don't have a real response to this rambling comment, except to reiterate that you understanding of human history and human nature is a story book scenario, created to support your thesis.

So, if i understood you correctly - anyone who was going to commit a crime or rape all the victim had to do was call out for the King and suddenly there would be troops ready to beat back the criminal?

It's just common sense - here in the US we have better law and order - take my country India - not so much law and order - the country is poor - has less resources to devote to law and order. Go back in the day, few Kings had their soldiers posted all over their land - the soldiers were needed at the capital to protect the king from attack, that was the prime need for the king - most citizens were on their own

I am sure you are familiar with this - a big snowfall even today people remain stuck in their homes unable to get out - can you imagine back in the day - you think the King sent out his troops to clear the snow of roads? What roads?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion - we disagree on this

 

[Ramaraksha]

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?

God has yet to speak - never has - we don't even have any evidence that He or She or It even exists!

All we have are people claiming to speak for God, that's all. The fact that "God" thinks the sun circles the earth is a clue, the idea that all the animals came from a boat is another

As i have posted - if you believe in ancient books and their laws - you remain stuck in the past - unable to move forward - so many islamic countries are going backward - their societies will remain primitive - no new ideas are going to come from these societies

But if you still insist, you will have to answer why you follow only a few of these laws - so many you leave out - quite a few laws make no sense and are pretty horrific

 

[Ramaraksha]

I don't think anyone is ignoring any problem purposely. Like Bronzeage said the world warming to communicate better with itself. The media may be ignoring problems but basic people are apparently able to fill in the gaps cooperatively now. So other than the media I don't think people are ignoring problems like Hitler, slavery, or Christianity.

I think they are - have you read any articles, editorials or any youtube videos on blaming christians for the hate against jews culminating in Hitler's final solution. FYI I am not blaming Christianity, I think that needs to be made clear, but christians are another matter. I did run across some posts from jews alluding to what i am saying, but since they are dependent on western aid, they don't openly air their ideas

Animals respawn on their own. Even humans. But I didn't say humans are replaceable. I don't support suffering anymore than you do. I suffer just to think about it actually. But yes, my loved ones are more important to me than anyone else. That isn't the case for you?

That is why Kant was not understood much - he was talking about a bigger picture - the "Do Unto others...." thing. Just as your loved ones suffer, expand your heart a bit more and realize that others suffer the same way, yes including animals. Just as you wouldn't like your dog or cat to be run over because you made a mistake and killed another's pet, but don't stop there, realize it is the same for others as well. And then think of what it would be like to be that dog or cat - they want to live too even though they can't articulate it

It is so funny when westerners cry about the Chinese holding dog-meat festivals - totally ignoring the suffering of cows, sheep, chicken and pig. You remind me of them - you heart has place in it for only so much kindness?

 

[untermensche]

Without a god I would think slapping my crying baby was the same as feeding it.

Basically you are saying your morals don't come from within, from society - read my opening post - Point No.1 - you nailed it! Without a God, rape and having sex is the same to you? Without God borrowing money and stealing it is the same to you?

Is a crying baby the same sight and sound as a happy baby?

Humans can clearly see when they are harming another human.

Religion can make one blind to this however.

 

[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?

God has yet to speak - never has - we don't even have any evidence that He or She or It even exists!

All we have are people claiming to speak for God, that's all. The fact that "God" thinks the sun circles the earth is a clue, the idea that all the animals came from a boat is another

As i have posted - if you believe in ancient books and their laws - you remain stuck in the past - unable to move forward - so many islamic countries are going backward - their societies will remain primitive - no new ideas are going to come from these societies

But if you still insist, you will have to answer why you follow only a few of these laws - so many you leave out - quite a few laws make no sense and are pretty horrific

They believe that the Bible is the word of God. You believe that it isn't. The question remains however. By what authority do you claim anything to be moral or immoral?

 

[another1]

have you read any articles, editorials or any youtube videos on blaming christians for the hate against jews culminating in Hitler's final solution.

No because I find some things spooky. Tell me something. If Hitler is long dead, but I'm alive... who is more responsible for the state of my life? Is Hitler a fascination or a point of reference for you? Yet I'm not a Jew and it may come off as insulting when I say it that way. But Hitler is dead and Nazis aren't winning the long game, so I'm not interested in that. My grandfather served in two wars, including the one that settled the Hitler problem. He agrees that Hitler is long dead other than in words.

I am not blaming Christianity, I think that needs to be made clear, but Christians are another matter

Package deal there.

Just as your loved ones suffer, expand your heart a bit more and realize that others suffer the same way, yes including animals. Just as you wouldn't like your dog or cat to be run over because you made a mistake and killed another's pet, but don't stop there, realize it is the same for others as well.

Is that from the Holy Bible? Which Christian Prophet was that? I'm just kidding. You care and you're passionate about the slaves and whatnot. You're using your voice and I have no right to ridicule you. But that did seem like a contradictory thing to say.

It is so funny when westerners cry about the Chinese holding dog-meat festivals - totally ignoring the suffering of cows, sheep, chicken and pig. You remind me of them - you heart has place in it for only so much kindness?

If you were to ask me to do something differently Ramaraksha, what would it be? To satisfy you in your view. Think like you? I'm already a Christian, so that wouldn't be too hard. I don't understand all of what you're saying because I think there are some communication barriers. You're obviously very thirsty to blame something for things you are more directly exposed to than I may be. I don't blame God for inventing slavery? Maybe that is my response.

 

[Treedbear]

Basically you are saying your morals don't come from within, from society - read my opening post - Point No.1 - you nailed it! Without a God, rape and having sex is the same to you? Without God borrowing money and stealing it is the same to you?

Is a crying baby the same sight and sound as a happy baby?

Humans can clearly see when they are harming another human.

Religion can make one blind to this however.

It seems that for the Abrahamic religions, and certainly for Christians and Muslims, the point is to please God, and thus obey him, or risk eternal punishment or simply being cast from his presence. For the early Jews it seemed to be more about immediate punishment than the promise of an afterlife. Either way one's own well being and salvation is ultimately the only consideration. This implies that humans are incapable of genuine concern for each other. If God says kill your son you kill your son. If God says smack your happy smiling baby you do it. It is good by definition. This is not morality. Claiming it is is a distortion of morality that leads to all kinds of selfishness.

 

[Veritass]

They believe that the Bible is the word of God. You believe that it isn't. The question remains however. By what authority do you claim anything to be moral or immoral?

This is actually begging the question. You assume that making a moral claim must be backed up by an authority.

If we start with a few basic observations:
- That we are part of a social species, and dependent on social interactions.
- That we are thinking beings, autonomous agents making decisions on how best to interact (theists and atheists seem to agree that we have choice, ignoring the free will derailment).
- That we are feeling beings, preferring pleasure to pain, satiation to hunger, etc.
- That we are empathic beings, able to feel how our actions are felt by others as well as by ourselves.

Then it would seem to follow that it is in our best interest -- and that of our families, social circles, and society in general -- to make decisions that maximize the well-being of ourselves and those around us. We judge such decisions as moral.

There is plenty of room even in this scenario to discuss how we rate competing values and thus competing senses of what is moral. For example, we can discuss the well-being of the individual versus the family versus the society versus the planet. We can discuss the relative merits and morals of short-term gains versus long-term responsibilities.

 

[bleubird]

Morality predates any codified religion.Do unto others as you would have them to to you.That is the main reason we succeeded as a species.The idea of a personal salvation by faith in imaginary beings seems very selfish.

 

[Learner]

My point is that the media and westerners never mention the hate under which jews suffered for 2,000 years. I am Hindu and i am sure if there is evil leader who comes up who lets loose mass killings of lower castes, will Hinduism not be blamed? Of course it should - the teachings have been kept alive, the hate has been kept alive and an evil leader just took advantage of the prevailing hate. That is exactly what Hitler did - he took advantage of the prevailing hate. The media and westerners don't want to point the finger at religion - they have made it all about Hitler and Nazism - I am not saying He is not evil, far from it, but he is not the entire story - as the media keeps ignoring the real culprit the hate is kept alive even today

Perhaps to the media,the more recent of the ghaslty atrocities that Jews suffered in WW2 was so horrific that this became the dominant focus of documented report. Media and westerners are currently pointing at Islamists fundamentalism. What is the main culprit to you?

"According to Jesus's Chrisitanity. Hitler and his like will not get away even if they think they'll escape justice by death" This is where i disagree - I don't see the point of torturing Hitler - how does that help those that he killed? It is just our way of satisfying ourselves - it is vengeance, not justice. And again, it lets those who were more than happy to help him get away - all the hate nurtured by the church all these years is ignored by focusing on just one person. As the saying goes - it takes a village to raise a child - lots of hands covered with blood, not just Hitler's

Vengeance is not part of Christianity (According to Jesus.. love your enimies sort of thing) However "Venegeance is mine" is left to God. Since you're not a believer of christianity , you no doubt see Hitler really got away from 'justice' anyway. The hate nutured by the church mentioned - I can sort of see why you say this as it is odd that the Catholic church was mingling with the nazis.The west being predominantly of christian background were fighting Hitler.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Vengeance is not part of Christianity (According to Jesus.. love your enimies sort of thing) However "Venegeance is mine" is left to God. Since you're not a believer of christianity , you no doubt see Hitler really got away from 'justice' anyway. The hate nutured by the church mentioned - I can sort of see why you say this as it is odd that the Catholic church was mingling with the nazis.The west being predominantly of christian background were fighting Hitler.

I'm don't know much about the church mingling with the Nazi's, but I recently watched a CSPAN lecture on the origin of the ghetto. It originated in Venice under the church as a way to organize the Jewish community by way of segregation as a source for obtaining loans quickly within the city. Later in the 15th century it turned into a way to punish them for not converting to Christianity. It seems to have gone down hill from there. Point is that Hitler used it as an example to justify his own actions. Leaving vengeance to God sounds good but lots of Christians assume they get to act as Gods agents. Let's see, what would God do?

 

[Random Person]

They believe that the Bible is the word of God. You believe that it isn't. The question remains however. By what authority do you claim anything to be moral or immoral?

This is actually begging the question. You assume that making a moral claim must be backed up by an authority.

If we start with a few basic observations:
- That we are part of a social species, and dependent on social interactions.
- That we are thinking beings, autonomous agents making decisions on how best to interact (theists and atheists seem to agree that we have choice, ignoring the free will derailment).
- That we are feeling beings, preferring pleasure to pain, satiation to hunger, etc.
- That we are empathic beings, able to feel how our actions are felt by others as well as by ourselves.

Then it would seem to follow that it is in our best interest -- and that of our families, social circles, and society in general -- to make decisions that maximize the well-being of ourselves and those around us. We judge such decisions as moral.

There is plenty of room even in this scenario to discuss how we rate competing values and thus competing senses of what is moral. For example, we can discuss the well-being of the individual versus the family versus the society versus the planet. We can discuss the relative merits and morals of short-term gains versus long-term responsibilities.

I think most readers would understand "By what authority" doesn't refer to a person. It means by what reason, rule power or justification.

I agree with your basic "observations" except I would call them "assumptions."


You failed to answer the question however. How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?

- - - Updated - - -

Morality predates any codified religion.Do unto others as you would have them to to you.That is the main reason we succeeded as a species.The idea of a personal salvation by faith in imaginary beings seems very selfish.

Jesus was the first to articulate the Golden Rule without the expectation of reciprocity.

 

[Veritass]

I think most readers would understand "By what authority" doesn't refer to a person. It means by what reason, rule power or justification.

I agree with your basic "observations" except I would call them "assumptions."

You failed to answer the question however. How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?

I have no problem with calling them assumptions instead of observations.

I would have phrased it more like, "How would you decide to judge someone's actions as more or less moral?" In this case, I have explained that judgment: it would be based on how those actions contribute to -- or take away from -- the overall well-being of the individuals involved, taking into account any effects on the groups involved.

Your phasing of "How would you know if someone is behaving morally or immorally?" smuggles in two assumptions of its own:
(1) That you could "know" this as if it has an objective basis in reality, as opposed to merely a situational evaluation of the actions; and
(2) That there is some binary condition of "moral and "immoral", as opposed to a spectrum of effects.
I reject both of those assumptions.

 

[abaddon]

Regarding the “golden rule”, Jesus was repeating something written hundreds of years before: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.” Leviticus 19:18 (and Leviticus 19:33 expands it to foreigners so it wasn’t meant just for kinsfolk).

People say it’s in other religions and philosophies including some that predate Jesus, and this is correct. Christians counter that those all are based in reciprocity, in expecting something back — which is as good as saying “But those are based merely in reason and reality and not on 'just cuz'".

It looks to me the Christian version expects reciprocity too. It just fails to say so because it stops short of reasoning "Why be nice to your neighbors?" through and resorts to mere authority. Its “love your neighbor” statements are always accompanied with “This is the law” or “I am the Lord” as if that divests it of “do this so that things work well for you and others” but it’s just snipping out any good reason for this “law” and replacing it with unreason: “Cuz God says so”.

The wish for anything to be authorized by something “greater than human” only references yet an opinion-maker. Theists fail to ask their God “Why?” though it is a necessity of reason to do so. And that’s assuming such an "authority" exists ... But then that is irrelevant to morality because everyone still must decide their reasons anyway, with or without a God around.