Why There Can be an Objective Morality Even Without a God

[PuerAzaelis]

But to describe the good Whole as the emergent product of imperfect lower units is to misstate the case. The perfect goodness of the Whole is prior (in every sense) to such goodness as is realized in the parts, and this priority is reflected in history. Precisely as knowledge of the suprahuman tends to precede knowledge of the human, and science is heavenly before it is earthly, so the religion of the gods precedes the conscious morality of men.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

The controversy is still going on as to whether good conduct can long survive the faith that originally inspired it. But the problem, when so phrased, is based upon a misconception: the real question is the extent of the damage caused by our unconsciousness of the suprahuman nature of all morality. For good conduct is nothing else than the functioning of the higher or suprahuman self, and whatever men may say about the secular character of their motives and their lack of religious beliefs, their actions are the test. Goodness is not less divine for wearing a strictly human dress, or love among professing atheists a Godless love. A man cannot extend his loyalty horizontally without extending himself vertically.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Since we're in a debate forum, I'll add a little fuel to the fire:

Personally, I find it insulting to be told that I don't know how to be moral without the intervention of some invisible, supernatural being. And even more, I trust much more a person who acting morally because it's want they want to do, than a person who is acting morally out of a fear of god.

As we are in a debate forum I can offer a thought from God as given by Baha'u'llah, it is worth pondering;

"...Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing can induce him to walk uprightly."

Now I bet that is more fuel for the fire than you provided

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If life, then morality. I doubt anyone walking the street at night would be against moral objectivity adherents. Too bad morality does not exist in nature though.

Nature is bound by its natural laws. It is not morally wrong for nature to run its course.

Man on the other hand has been given the choice and dominion over nature.

Now the difficult bit, we have choices that can aid in the balance and calming of nature, or disrupt it to the extent that a corrective balance will be the consequence.

Regards Tony

 

[icehorse]

As we are in a debate forum I can offer a thought from God as given by Baha'u'llah, it is worth pondering;

"...Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing can induce him to walk uprightly."

Now I bet that is more fuel for the fire than you provided

Regards Tony

Let's analyze the quote you just offered:

- first, it is mainly a message of fear, not love.
- second, it is divisive.
- third, it supports the idea that we are all meant to be subjugated.

I want you to live the best life you can, and I gotta say, you can do better than being subjugated by other men. And make no mistake, your quote was written by people (not an imaginary god), who's primary interest was to subjugate others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This was your response to my comment: For example, a Christian who interprets the Sixth Commandment as an absolute rule will find that the killer in Case #2 has sinned. His minority opinion doesn't make morality subjective; it makes him wrong.

If by a "different perspective on the facts, I can assume you meant these facts: Case #2 The facts indicate a killing in a clear case of self defense.

No, I mean different perspectives about the consequences.

To me as an atheist, killing in self-defense makes sense: it's a zero-sum decision. No matter what, exactly one person will die; why should it be me instead of the person who is trying to kill me?

But for a Christian who believes in Heaven and Hell, it's not a zero-sum decision:

- if he lets himself be killed, he (presumably) ends up in Heaven. Overall, there's a tremendous net benefit.
- if he prevents the murder by killing his assailant, the assailant (presumably) dies in a state of sin, goes to Hell, and suffers immensely. Overall, there's a tremendous net harm.

What justification does the Christian have for killing in self-defense? Not his own personal well-being: that would be better served by him going to Heaven. And not an idea of "the greatest good for all concerned:" ensuring that someone will be consigned to Hell goes against that goal, too.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Let's analyze the quote you just offered:

- first, it is mainly a message of fear, not love.
- second, it is divisive.
- third, it supports the idea that we are all meant to be subjugated.

I want you to live the best life you can, and I gotta say, you can do better than being subjugated by other men. And make no mistake, your quote was written by people (not an imaginary god), who's primary interest was to subjugate others.

That is life, it is submission for the good of all. If you choose to submit to the virtues, then all good is obtained.

Muhammad taught this submission, Christ showed what it was to fully submit to those that still portrayed their baser selves.

All men have the virtues latent withing them, it is those that submit to their animal desires and use these virtues, that become the greatest of all men.

Regards Tony

 

[joe1776]

No, I mean different perspectives about the consequences.

To me as an atheist, killing in self-defense makes sense: it's a zero-sum decision. No matter what, exactly one person will die; why should it be me instead of the person who is trying to kill me?

But for a Christian who believes in Heaven and Hell, it's not a zero-sum decision:

- if he lets himself be killed, he (presumably) ends up in Heaven. Overall, there's a tremendous net benefit.
- if he prevents the murder by killing his assailant, the assailant (presumably) dies in a state of sin, goes to Hell, and suffers immensely. Overall, there's a tremendous net harm.

What justification does the Christian have for killing in self-defense? Not his own personal well-being: that would be better served by him going to Heaven. And not an idea of "the greatest good for all concerned:" ensuring that someone will be consigned to Hell goes against that goal, too.

There isn't much point in continuing our discussion because we are in different camps in our opinions.. As to morality, it sounds like you are solidly in the rationalist camp, along with Plato, Kant, Aquinas and most ethical philosophers. I'm in the instinct-intuition camp, along with David Hume and some recent science.

All knowledge begins in the senses.Years ago, it occurred to me that our long-ago ancestors couldn't see, hear, smell or taste moral right from wrong so they must have felt it instinctively just as we do today. Our rational minds would know nothing of morality if not for those feelings that we refer to as conscience.

 

[shmogie]

I think the good moral instincts are crucial to the survival of the species.

Instincts. Isn´t morality about a judgement, objectively, or subjectively, of good or bad ?

 

[ChristineM]

Everything is created in God's Image, everything reflects a Virtue of God.

Man has been created with the potential of all the virtues and must rise above the captive self that bound to nature. Man has been given the free will of choice.

Regards Tony

That is your opinion. When you can provide evidence for all that I'll consider it

 

[joe1776]

Instincts. Isn´t morality about a judgement, objectively, or subjectively, of good or bad ?

IMO, the human instincts we refer to as 'conscience' guide us to refrain from certain acts (wrong-bad) because they threaten the survival of our species. That leaves other acts as as justifiable-good that enhance our chances of survival.

I'm guessing that the other animals have those instincts as well -- although not as complex as ours.

I don't accept the idea that moral judgments are subjective. I think they only seem that way because of the rampant confusion on this topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There isn't much point in continuing our discussion because we are in different camps in our opinions.. As to morality, it sounds like you are solidly in the rationalist camp, along with Plato, Kant, Aquinas and most ethical philosophers. I'm in the instinct-intuition camp, along with David Hume and some recent science.

All knowledge begins in the senses.Years ago, it occurred to me that our long-ago ancestors couldn't see, hear, smell or taste moral right from wrong so they must have felt it instinctively just as we do today. Our rational minds would know nothing of morality if not for those feelings that we refer to as conscience.

I'm talking about the idea that morality must take into account the consequences of our actions. I have no idea what you're talking about or why you would disagree.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is your opinion. When you can provide evidence for all that I'll consider it

Christine, the evidence has been provided, it is all around you and passed by every minute if every day, you at any time can choose to consider the evidence of our spiritual reality.

If one waits for material senses to have a miraculous display for proof, than one will join the many that will always wait for such a sign.

The Bible put it in easy to understand language;

“The Pharisees came and began to argue with [Jesus], seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.’ And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.” Mark 8:11–13

The miracle is the change of heart, a heart that longs not for this life, unless and until all can share in the joys this life has to offere, if but one person on this planet suffers, all should not rest until that person finds peace.

Regards Tony

 

[shmogie]

IMO, the human instincts we refer to as 'conscience' guide us to refrain from certain acts (wrong-bad) because they threaten the survival of our species. That leaves other acts as as justifiable-good that enhance our chances of survival.

I'm guessing that the other animals have those instincts as well -- although not as complex as ours.

I don't accept the idea that moral judgments are subjective. I think they only seem that way because of the rampant confusion on this topic.

Conscience is a group instinct that exists for survival, yes, no ?

If you believe yes, then there is a problem.

At 6 YO my buddy and I went into a store and each stole a piece of bubble gum. My conscience told me it was wrong, he didn´t think it was wrong at all.

We were of the same species, had the same vested interest in survival, yet our consciences said a different thing to each of us.

 

[joe1776]

Conscience is a group instinct that exists for survival, yes, no ?

If you believe yes, then there is a problem.

At 6 YO my buddy and I went into a store and each stole a piece of bubble gum. My conscience told me it was wrong, he didn´t think it was wrong at all.

We were of the same species, had the same vested interest in survival, yet our consciences said a different thing to each of us.

We can't learn anything from your anecdotal experience because we can't guess what was going on in your buddy's mind.

The way to think about your moral question is to imagine a jury of say 100 unbiased people to judge the facts you give, what would their judgment be? I have no doubt that the majority would agree with you that the theft was an immoral act given those facts. Do you?

 

[shmogie]

Most people (and animals) know that instinctively without a god sitting on their shoulder to tell them

I am not talking about God. I am talking simply about the concept of right and wrong. So, were the cannibals of Papua New Guinea instinctively right, or wrong ? What about the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children to ba´al. ? How about some Gypsy tribes who habitually steal ( I interviewed the leaders of one, they freely admitted it, and why) instinctive morality ?

 

[shmogie]

We can't learn anything from your anecdotal experience because we can't guess what was going on in your buddy's mind.

The way to think about your moral question is to imagine a jury of say 100 unbiased people to judge the facts you give, what would their judgment be? I have no doubt that the majority would agree with you that the theft was an immoral act given those facts. Do you?

I prepared cases for juries throughout my career., there is no such thing as an unbiased one. Since this is hypothetical morality, we´ll have a hypothetical jury. WHY would this jury make the judgement you believe they would ?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Conscience is a group instinct that exists for survival, yes, no ?

If you believe yes, then there is a problem.

At 6 YO my buddy and I went into a store and each stole a piece of bubble gum. My conscience told me it was wrong, he didn´t think it was wrong at all.

We were of the same species, had the same vested interest in survival, yet our consciences said a different thing to each of us.

Different Nature and Nurture leads to different frames of reference.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not talking about God. I am talking simply about the concept of right and wrong. So, were the cannibals of Papua New Guinea instinctively right, or wrong ? What about the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children to ba´al. ? How about some Gypsy tribes who habitually steal ( I interviewed the leaders of one, they freely admitted it, and why) instinctive morality ?

Education alone can bring out our morals latent withon us all. Nature and Nurture then become big factors.

It shows every human needs education in virtues.

Regards Tony

 

[PruePhillip]

Education alone can bring out our morals latent withon us all. Nature and Nurture then become big factors.

It shows every human needs education in virtues.

Regards Tony

Americans are amongst the most educated people in history.
But ask any "third world" nation what they think of "American
morals" and they might tell you the term is an oxymoron.