How can morality exist without god?

[Polarbear]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If there is a creator god then the natural world was made by it. If all that exists is from that god then humans are too and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

 

[Polarbear]

If there is a creator god then the natural world was made by it. If all that exists is from that god then humans are too and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Not if "he" gave us a soul or some sort of spiritual aspect that isn't bound by causality

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Not if "he" gave us a soul or some sort of spiritual aspect that isn't bound by causality

Then the human becomes nothing more than a random number generator. How is this free will?

 

[Polarbear]

Then the human becomes nothing more than a random number generator. How is this free will?

Souls do not neccesarlly make us "random number generators". They could, but random actions are not the only alternative to predetermined actions. Humans have a thought process (called focus by objectivists) that we can direct at will. There are many factors that could influence our decisions and with our "focus" we can choose between them. For example we can choose between emphazising reason or feelings.

Anyway this thread is not about how I justify morality within my theistic worldview, but how atheists justify morality within their worldview. Which you don't seem to think is possible, but thanks for your reponses anyway.

So does any atheists feel like taking a stand for morality?

 

[Me Myself]

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

Just because your will is predetermined doesn´t mean that it is not your will.

Someone will be held accountable for society to be able to function. Thus, you do. The fact that he really didn´thave a choice is good to remember to avoid feelings like hate, anger, guilt, etc but the fact that punishment still exists helps keeping the society relatively moral.

About where morality comes from, it comes from us, wheter determined or not.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Souls do not necessarily make us "random number generators". They could, but random actions are not the only alternative to predetermined actions.

By definition, yes they are.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'random' as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard."

Humans have a thought process (called focus by objectivists) that we can direct at will. There are many factors that could influence our decisions and with our "focus" we can choose between them. For example we can choose between emphasizing reason or feelings.

Try not thinking of a pink elephant.

[youtube]ph7LcupAENw[/youtube]

Anyway this thread is not about how I justify morality within my theistic worldview, but how atheists justify morality within their worldview. Which you don't seem to think is possible, but thanks for your reponses anyway.

They stem from the same question, and therefore share the same answers. Whether a creator exists or not, morality is determined by the individual. God is not good unless you believe he is, therefore you determine your morality the same as anyone. Theism solves nothing.

 

[McBell]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

Huh?
How exactly does causality remove free will?

You will have to define what you mean by "free will".

 

[idav]

Having no creator god makes no difference in the objectivity of morality. Ultimately it is whatever any given conscious being decides.

The unalterable events is the same with or without god, especially some omnimax god. Us being aware enough to make conscious decisions is enough to think about what we are doing and any associated ramifications, even if I was determined to do so.

 

[bobhikes]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

First free will can and does exist without god

Second morality could simply be survival instinct. If everybody tried to kill everybody no one survives. At all times at least 51% of a species must be good or that species will not survive. In reality its probably about 85% of every species is good.

 

[Polarbear]

Just because your will is predetermined doesn´t mean that it is not your will.

Someone will be held accountable for society to be able to function. Thus, you do. The fact that he really didn´thave a choice is good to remember to avoid feelings like hate, anger, guilt, etc but the fact that punishment still exists helps keeping the society relatively moral.

About where morality comes from, it comes from us, wheter determined or not.

Maybe I should have defined my terms better. In philosophy morality usual refers to what we do, not what we should and should not do. In everyday speech however we usually use morality to mean the former and that is how I am using the term here.

Your reponse does not give any foundation of stating that anything is objectivly right or wrong, it is just an explanation for how the "social order" is maintained. Further more the fact that there is a conciousness involved does not make anyone responsible for their actions unless it has free will, because if not an individuals thoughts are no more than parts of a predetermined sequence, hence there is no diffrence between human beings and a rock in this respect.

 

[1137]

You can justify morals logically, but that does not necessarily mean that those are natural and objective. It's more like they are subjective views that work best for the majority of people (which is still going to be subjective, probably with few or no exceptions). There really is no set morality, but this line of thought is Utilitarianism. For example, we know the damage that rape can cause a victim. Rape is not going to turn out well, and so we can logically say that this is immoral. But there are cultures where this is completely normal. The Mongols (I believe) found a wife by taking a woman and raping her. To us, obviously, this is a horrific thought. To them, this was most likely completely normal.

It is not always so black and white though. My favorite Utilitarian critique comes from a work of fiction. During the cold war, the smartest man in the world forms and completes a plan that ends up killing 15 million people in order to unite the world and save it from nuclear destruction. "Killing millions to save billions". We can look at something like the holocaust and say that it is logically immoral, but the above (fictional) example is not so clear cut.

Also, we can punish acts simply they are deserving of punishment. A form of balance, almost. If a person kills another in cold blood, take their life. This is known as Retributivism. Punish harmful acts with equal force, an eye for an eye. I, personally, believe this is the correct way to handle things. Because of how we work, you are not going to recondition a murderer or rapist to just stop those urges. Perhaps, maybe, they will not act on it but...

Finding a good mix of the above theories is probably a good starting place, but nobody will ever fully agree on morality.

Nothing is black and white.

 

[Sir Doom]

If by creator god, you mean an omnipotent or almighty being, then we actually cannot have free will unless this type of being does not exist.

If omnipotence exists, then it is the only thing that contains free will. All things and their properties would be determined by this being's free will.

So, without such a being, free will becomes possible for us to possess. This is all a side topic though, lets get back to your question.

Even if the universe is fundamentally amoral, that does not mean that humanity is. The universe itself my view the slaying of an innocent as ultimately meaningless, but human beings on a general basis (and more than likely the specific humans involved) consider the event to be extremely significant as they do not personally consider every event from a universal point of view.

Morality may in fact be a ultimately meaningless concept as far as the universe is concerned. But we are not the universe, just a tiny part of it. Morality most definitely has an impact on that tiny part and so can't and shouldn't be dismissed no matter what the truth about god is.

 

[Polarbear]

Try not thinking of a pink elephant.

It is difficult not to think of a specific thing just after it has been suggested to you. That proves nothing about free will

Whether a creator exists or not, morality is determined by the individual. God is not good unless you believe he is, therefore you determine your morality the same as anyone. Theism solves nothing.

Someone deciding, believing or feeling something is good or bad doesn't make it so.

 

[Me Myself]

Your reponse does not give any foundation of stating that anything is objectivly right or wrong, it is just an explanation for how the "social order" is maintained. Further more the fact that there is a conciousness involved does not make anyone responsible for their actions unless it has free will, because if not an individuals thoughts are no more than parts of a predetermined sequence, hence there is no diffrence between human beings and a rock in this respect.

Responsable means that it will be the one giving "responses" abuot what happened. The responsable is simply chosen. Naturaly, it is not the awareness fault what the responsable does, and the awareness does end up paying, but still giving responsability to the mind-body of the subject makes the mind-body of him/her more propense to not screw up.

About objective right and wrong, no, nothing is 100% objective technically speaking (I can back it up with oxford dictionary ) and morals are definetely not the exception. Morality is generaly tied to the feeling (and morality IS a feeling) of being aware and mindful of other people´s awareness and the fact that they want to be happy and not be hurt the same way your awareness wants to be happy and not hurt.

That is not going to get objective any time soon.

 

[Me Myself]

It is difficult not to think of a specific thing just after it has been suggested to you. That proves nothing about free will

It does. Thinking is an action too.

 

[Polarbear]

Huh?
How exactly does causality remove free will?

You will have to define what you mean by "free will".

By free will I mean the ability to choose between multiple courses of action through mental processes under an individuals control. Causality requires that there is only one possible course of action.

 

[Me Myself]

By free will I mean the ability to choose between multiple courses of action through mental processes under an individuals control. Causality requires that there is only one possible course of action.

how are we defining individual here?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Someone deciding, believing or feeling something is good or bad doesn't make it so.

So, you agree that a creator doesn't hold any authority on morality? It sounds like it.

 

[Polarbear]

First free will can and does exist without god

How so?

Second morality could simply be survival instinct. If everybody tried to kill everybody no one survives. At all times at least 51% of a species must be good or that species will not survive. In reality its probably about 85% of every species is good.

How does our survival instinct give us a way to distinguish between right and wrong or make us accountable for our actions? I am also wondering what you are baseing your precentages on?