How can morality exist without god?

[Iti oj]

Im a moral consiquetialist

 

[1137]

I'm a retributivist / utilitarian kind of... haha. I think that an act should have an equal act in response. If you are caught stealing, lose your possessions. If you kill someone, lose your life. On the utilitarian side, doing what is best for the majority, it takes care of things such as mass genocide, nuclear war, war in general, and so on.

 

[Polarbear]

Im so sick of this question. Do you only do good because of god and religion?

No, I don't and that is not what is thread is about at all. It's about if morality can exist in an athestic worldview and it doesn't seem like it can.

This is false. Many people quite enjoy pain. Also, pain and pleasure are subjective and so we could not set up a moral system.

Firsly I don't think it is accurate to say that some people enjoy pain, I guess it makes more sense to say that they experience things normaly viewed as painful as pleasurable or that they experience some sort of pleasure or release along with the pain. Secondly, I agree that it's subjectiv that X is painful and Y is pleasurable, but it's not subjective that person A thinks X is painful and Y pleasureable and if we know what all the people involved thinks we determine what would be right and wrong to do to in a situation

Also I didn't claim that morality was entirely based on pain and pleasure, that was just an example. There are also other factors such as the dignity of life and consent.

As stated before, we can only set up one for the society we are in. We can set up things on a grand scale based on genocide perhaps, crimes against humanity. But something as vague as pain or pleasure will not work. Taking the ability to choose might be better. That is something that everyone shares; we want the ability to choose. Murder takes away someone's choice. Rape does as well. Other things also, but compared to our current system it is not nearly as complex or illogical.

Free will does not really exist in the way we think it. On a smaller level, the way the world is, events around us, biological interaction in your head, etc, there is really no room for much choice. Time is also a problem, it does not work as we think it does, we do not understand it. Chances are that future events are already happening. Right now, in the future, you are responding to this quote. Right now, in the past, you are staring the thread.

Your post seems contradictory, how can murder and rape be wrong because they take away choice if there is no such thing as free will? How can such a thing even exist in your worldview?

They change from generation to generation, from society to society, from one culture to another. There is nothing constant about morality.

Why even call it morality if it changes? How can there even be right and wrong actions if they aren't objectivly right or wrong?

 

[1137]

Your post seems contradictory, how can murder and rape be wrong because they take away choice if there is no such thing as free will? How can such a thing even exist in your worldview?

Of course there isn't free will. However, firstly, our brain still makes the decisions so it is still us. But people should be punished because what they did is wrong, not because they had free will to do so. We don't let sociopathic killers free just because it is in their nature to do such a thing. You get money for working, you get educated for going to school, you should be punished for harming.

 

[porphery]

I'm taking my five children over a desolate wasteland in order that I save them from starvation, but the 2yr old is just not capable of making the trip, I have no other choice, I must make the trip in order that I save my children. If I continue to spend more time and energy on the 2yr old and endanger the other 4, all of them will die. Which is the morally correct decision I should make? Which decision would God accept as my morally right decision?

 

[Sir Doom]

I like your thinking but honestly I dont think your logic supports the existence of objective moral values. Sure, the victims of John's act can't "perpetuate" the act, while the victims of Bob's can. This is a difference, I agree, but to say that the difference makes Bob's actions better is a subjective assertion.

Yeah "better" was poor word choice, but you're right the logic is broken. I didn't take into account outside observers for one, and beyond that I'm not taking into account all of the acts that John's victims might have done before being murdered. Hell, one of them might have put the idea in his head for all we know which completely ruins the argument.

In any case, it was a pretty idea that doesn't really work.

 

[Polarbear]

I'm taking my five children over a desolate wasteland in order that I save them from starvation, but the 2yr old is just not capable of making the trip, I have no other choice, I must make the trip in order that I save my children. If I continue to spend more time and energy on the 2yr old and endanger the other 4, all of them will die. Which is the morally correct decision I should make? Which decision would God accept as my morally right decision?

Well, you do have a point. Anyway the fact that there are certain circumstance where an act is acceptable and certain circumstances where it's unacceptable it doesn't mean that wheter or not it's right or wrong in a given situation isn't objective. Note that I am not saying you have claimed that, I am merely clarifying my position. Also, I don't think god has any opinion on what is right and wrong, he has only made morality possible through free will.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Well, you do have a point. Anyway the fact that there are certain circumstance where an act is acceptable and certain circumstances where it's unacceptable it doesn't mean that wheter or not it's right or wrong in a given situation isn't objective. Note that I am not saying you have claimed that, I am merely clarifying my position. Also, I don't think god has any opinion on what is right and wrong, he has only made morality possible through free will.

I don't see why free will would have anything to do with it. Morality only exists as the proper method towards a desired end. If the goal is the greatest happiness for all humanity (which seems to be the case most of the time), then you can create a very structured moral system leading to that end. This has absolutely nothing to do with "the ability to choose otherwise".

 

[idav]

I don't see why free will would have anything to do with it. Morality only exists as the proper method towards a desired end. If the goal is the greatest happiness for all humanity (which seems to be the case most of the time), then you can create a very structured moral system leading to that end. This has absolutely nothing to do with "the ability to choose otherwise".

Well the question of morality even being necessary comes up if we don't really have free will. I think it would still matter because we are conscious being that have 'ability to chose otherwise' with or without free will.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You might want to check post thirty were I explain what I mean by morality. Your response doesn't account for that at all. You just describe how humans feel about right and wrong and how that preception evolves, not how we determine what is objectivly right or wrong.

There is no objective right or wrong, as I said,
Like all human efforts, ethics and morality must constantly change and evolve to fit current societal evolution.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

1) What is right and wrong can be established through reason. For example pain is bad and pleasure is good.

2) I don't think morals are god given, but they can't exist without free will. Something god gave us.

3) Morals don't change, they are constant

Point 1 is at odds with point 3. If what is right and wrong can be established through reason, then as we become more knowledgeable, we can change our morals. Slavery is a prime example of this. It was morally right a couple hundred years ago to own slaves, yet we detest slavery in the modern world.

As to point 2, why cannot morals exist without free will? And how do you know god gave you free will? I think you meant to say choices do not exist without free will, not morality.
If you believe that god gives you free will, then your will isn't really free, is it? It s contingent upon you obeying certain rules that god made up.

Also, it has been scientifically demonstrated that free will doesn't really exist. I am not claiming that it is conclusive, but the seed has been sown.
Get Out of Your Own Way - WSJ.com

What do you mean by evolution, the scientific theory or the process of natural selection? How is either a source for morality?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Alceste]

This isnt even true. People who claim that objective morality exists, dont have to claim that we would all share it. Surely you agree that truth exists? That in theory objective truth exists a.k.a reality, but that there may be an unbridgeable gap between our ability to know(with 100% certainty) things about reality(objective truth), and rather we are only left with approximations and idealizations. People can assert the existence of objective truth(reality), and not have to claim that we must all share the same exact knowledge of it...

Of course I agree that reality exists. It's made of particles, not opinions. A "true" opinion is one that accurately assesses the nature of reality, supported by careful observation and peer review. For example, it's my opinion that the sky appears to be blue. It's a true opinion (IOW, an opinion based on objective fact) because all my peers also observe that the sky appears to be blue.

All opinions not based on careful observation of objective reality and affirmed by peer review are subjective, such as the opinion that it's OK to cut the genitals of our children. We know it is subjective rather than objective because we don't all believe the same thing.

Our opinions on child rearing vary wildly from one culture to another, whereas the opinion that the sky appears to be blue is consistent across all cultures.

And stop putting words in my mouth, where in my post did I defend the idea of objective morality?

Thanks for the stab at circumcision as well. Pretty much everyone gets circumcised in America get over it.

It was implied by starting your post with "Without God, objective morals wouldn't exist", then launching into a ludicrous interpretation of non-theistic morality that only theists ever seem to come up with (IOW, raping and murdering is perfectly fine as far as non-theistic morality is concerned).

I don't live in America. Most people don't circumcise their kids, male or female, where I live (West Coast of Canada). Like I said, the opinion on whether or not circumcision is moral varies from one culture to another. That's how we know it can not be "objective".

 

[Polarbear]

I don't see why free will would have anything to do with it. Morality only exists as the proper method towards a desired end.

I don't think we have the same definiton of morality.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I don't think we have the same definiton of morality.

Would you like to share yours?

 

[Polarbear]

Would you like to share yours?

I already have. Check post thirty and especially the dictionary links.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I already have. Check post thirty and especially the dictionary links.

That...doesn't really help. By your chosen definition you are positing an objective morality, or the existence of a objective good and evil, which cannot exist without being in relation to a goal. So what do you believe should be the goal of your moral system?

 

[Polarbear]

That...doesn't really help. By your chosen definition you are positing an objective morality, or the existence of a objective good and evil, which cannot exist without being in relation to a goal. So what do you believe should be the goal of your moral system?

Well, when you look at it like that I suppose you are right.

 

[Alceste]

I should have brought up my view of causality earlier, anyway there are two types of causality: event-event causality and agent causality. Both forms of causality asserts a relationship between the first event (the cause) and the second event (the effect). In both cases the effect is entirely determined by the nature of it's cause. (The event that lead to the effect)

Now let us look at event-event causality specifically. Say that the big bang is the first cause, that would mean that every subsequent event was decided by the big bang as the event following it (the effect) would be the cause of the next event, and that event the cause of the next event and so on, implying that once the nature of the first cause has been determined there is only on possible sequence of events. You know like with falling domino bricks.

In my view everything in determined by event-event causality, except human actions. They are determined by agent causality, which means that an agent (in this case a human being) is the cause of their own actions and that this cause is not entirely determined by external causes. In a sense you are the first cause of your actions. I am sorry if this was bad and confusing explanation, but then again this is a complicated topic, maybe these links will make things clearer:

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daniel Dennett | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society



A single ancestor turning into multiple species does not prove that there are/were potentially infinite directions the world could take. Because as long as the world is deterministic how many and what species that ancestor would produce was entirely determined by the first cause. The ancestor did not have the ability to choose to produce fewer or more species than it did, neither could it have produced any other species than it did.

Well, let me reassure you that people with a purely naturalistic world view do not share your opinion of the nature of causality. Neither does anything in nature. If the big bang could only produce one single effect, why do we have billions upon billions of stars, each as unique as a snowflake?

Predestination simply is not compatible with a naturalistic / empirical world view. It can only exist in a context where some supreme intelligence is directing everything in accordance with some divine plan. Without this restriction, the possibilities that arise from each single choice of each single organism are limitless. There is no need to impose an abstract religious construct such as "free will", bestowed only upon one animal among many. From a naturalistic perspective, every living thing is constantly choosing freely, setting in motion a chain of events with infinite and unforeseeable possible results. The number of possible choices any organism can make is limited only by their inherent ability to conceive of different choices and weigh the benefits of each.

 

[punkdbass]

Of course I agree that reality exists. It's made of particles, not opinions. A "true" opinion is one that accurately assesses the nature of reality, supported by careful observation and peer review. For example, it's my opinion that the sky appears to be blue. It's a true opinion (IOW, an opinion based on objective fact) because all my peers also observe that the sky appears to be blue.

And yet these "true" opinions are constantly changing, being re-evaluated, edited, and sometimes completely thrown out. I think "true" is definitely the wrong word to use here, but I agree that these "true" opinions accurately describe reality, only to a certain degree, but can never pierce the veil of being 100% accurate and in tune with reality. And if a claim is seemingly 99% accurate, sometimes that extra percent makes a world of difference(think chaos theory) -- hence certain ideas that are thought to be accurately true are often completely thrown out as more progress is made.

Your example of the sky being blue is a poor example, although I get the point you are trying to make.. What is "blue?" good luck defining it and proving that all of your peers agree on your definition..

All opinions not based on careful observation of objective reality and affirmed by peer review are subjective, such as the opinion that it's OK to cut the genitals of our children. We know it is subjective rather than objective because we don't all believe the same thing.

1. Goodluck finding ANYTHING that EVERYONE believes the same on. If that was the definition of "objective truth" then there would be absolutely no objective truth, which further proves my points.

2. I would argue that it's impossible to make an objective claim on reality, and that science, or "hypothetical" discovery, is not the only form of obtaining knowledge about reality. Rather non-hypothetical discovery can tell us things about reality too, and that IMO certain claims made from non-hypothetical discovery(ex: certain religious claims) are just as "objective" as any other claim man can make about reality. The point being that it is impossible to make an objective claim on reality..

(IOW, raping and murdering is perfectly fine as far as non-theistic morality is concerned).

Are you serious?!?!!? go back and read my post! I was defending non-theistic morality and showed how moral relativism is a solution that we can use to justify moral beliefs without the need for objective moral values. Here, I'll provide a quote of what I said for you:

Moral relativism provides a solution that says if John kills little children for fun, and Bob saves lives every single day, that both of these acts are not equally justified, but rather John's act is uniquely justified relative to his beliefs and values, and Bob's act is uniquely justified relative to his beliefs and values.

Thus acts like murder and rape would not be EQUAL to acts like saving a life, and giving charity, but rather would be differently justified and relative to the beliefs and values of the person doing the act. And sense human beings, in our nature, have a need and desire to preserve social order, certain acts are seen as more justifiable(but the majority of society) than others.

To one who might naively think, "If there is no God, then all acts are equal, so what is the point of pursuing moral development?" Moral Relativism provides the solution.

 

[Polarbear]

Well, let me reassure you that people with a purely naturalistic world view do not share your opinion of the nature of causality. Neither does anything in nature. If the big bang could only produce one single effect, why do we have billions upon billions of stars, each as unique as a snowflake?

Well let me clarify. I don't mean that the big bang can produce only one single effect, but that what effects it has is entirely based up on it's nature (the way the big was) and that once that has been established all subsequent causes follow a predetermined course.

Predestination simply is not compatible with a naturalistic / empirical world view. It can only exist in a context where some supreme intelligence is directing everything in accordance with some divine plan. Without this restriction, the possibilities that arise from each single choice of each single organism are limitless. There is no need to impose an abstract religious construct such as "free will", bestowed only upon one animal among many. From a naturalistic perspective, every living thing is constantly choosing freely, setting in motion a chain of events with infinite and unforeseeable possible results. The number of possible choices any organism can make is limited only by their inherent ability to conceive of different choices and weigh the benefits of each.

How does an organism weight the benefits of their choices without free will and how can there be more than one possible outcome to the weighting process?