A World without Religion?

[ThinkingSapien]

And what if someone declares that his moral code is NOT: do not harm

But rather: what is good is that which benefits me.

Such people exist in this world which I have been told has a God.

It seems that at least from time to time there are people that will take the position of an ethical egoist in ways that negatively impact others (ex: choosing between taking responsibility for one’s own actions vs making someone else look responsible so that the consequences can be avoided) or positively impact others (ex: helping out a person in need with the intention of building up a network of people that could be called upon to be of assistance in the future). One would need to look no further than politics to find examples of either. Though I think political discussions are something that are prohibited here, so I’ll not go into details.

 

[PRmerger]

Such people exist in this world which I have been told has a God.

And because there is a God, we can tell them: you are wrong.

If there is no God, then all this narcissist has to do is say: I am using the very same paradigm which you use to determine what is moral.

And you have to only say: why, I guess you are right. Go ahead, Mr. Narcissist. You are moral in your own eyes. Therefore, you are moral.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So if you personally never believed, then you would be free to do those things.

You would be free to do those terrible things because there is no red light moral authority to tell you “Stop!”

There is of course the natural law, but without divine law to establish and support natural law, and that divine law recognized as divine, the atheist has no obligation to follow even the natural law. This is why Hitler said he would destroy all religion, starting with the Judaism, from whom the Western World derives its keen sense of the moral Lawgiver.

Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, said in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636:

“When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If someone What you call Christian morality in this case is a universal morality that almost everyone has. Primarily due to an inbuilt sense of empathy (yeah, I know, God gave us that).

Yes, it’s called “natural law” divinely ordained. But if you take God out of the picture, natural law can be easily redefined by the process of rationalizing one’s sins and crimes.

Examples:

“I’ll run this red light because there is no cop in sight.” (And no God watching).

“I’ll sleep with my neighbor’s wife while he is at work” (And no God watching).

“I’ll cheat on my taxes because they’ll never catch me” (And no God watching).

All the while, of course, the devil is watching and cheering him on.

But God **is **watching.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And because there is a God, we can tell them: you are wrong.

Well, you can tell them anything. I’m not sure what the intention would be or how effective that would be in getting to the desired end. “God exists therefore you are wrong” just doesn’t sound very convincing.

And you have to only say: why, I guess you are right. Go ahead, Mr. Narcissist.

I’m assuming you are not referring to a person that has been diagnosed with Narcissistic personality disorder (301.81) . My response (which might even be a non-verbal response) would be (and has been) dependent on my relationship with the person and how the topic even came up and dependent on my intentions for such a response.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, you can tell them anything. I’m not sure what the intention would be or how effective that would be in getting to the desired end. “God exists therefore you are wrong” just doesn’t sound very convincing.

It is presented this way: an absolute truth exists; therefore you are wrong.

I’m assuming you are not referring to a person that has been diagnosed with Narcissistic personality disorder (301.81) . My response (which might even be a non-verbal response) would be (and has been) dependent on my relationship with the person and how the topic even came up and dependent on my intentions for such a response.

You’re not really addressing the issue, TS.

If all morality is subjective, then without God/Absolute Truth, you have no logical reason for telling another person: it is wrong for you to kill your daughter because she wants a divorce.

All you can say is: you, similar to your taste for mashed turnips, embrace the idea that killing your daughter is moral. I, similar to my preference for mashed potatoes, prefer the idea that it’s wrong to kill your daughter. But just like it would be absurd for me to take away your mashed turnips, it’s similarly absurd for me to take away your right to kill your daughter.

 

[Aloysium]

Well, you can tell them anything. I’m not sure what the intention would be or how effective that would be in getting to the desired end. “God exists therefore you are wrong” just doesn’t sound very convincing. . . .

Now, some people just like to argue.
But in terms of how one actually conducts one’s life:
To hear that the Creator of the world,
who wants the best for us,
who has true freedom in all He does and that to do His will is to participate in that freedom,
who is Truth,
who is Beauty,
who is goodness,
who brings about one’s very existence,
to say that He wants me to behave differently, and I don’t give it any sort of consideration?
It would seem to me, imprudent.
I would want to be as certain as one can humanly be, that I am choosing correctly before I continue in my ways.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

All you can say is: you, similar to your taste for mashed turnips, embrace the idea that killing your daughter is moral. I, similar to my preference for mashed potatoes, prefer the idea that it’s wrong to kill your daughter. But just like it would be absurd for me to take away your mashed turnips, it’s similarly absurd for me to take away your right to kill your daughter.

The fundamental difference is my preferences for music, food, and such all apply specifically to what I do. With moral preferences, it goes beyond that. It’s not just that I don’t like killing, I don’t like any needless suffering or death- whether caused by disease, disaster, Godzilla, or other people.

And who says he has a right to kill his daughter? You seem to presume that everyone has a right to do as their morals demand, but that principle need not be respected by everyone. Moreover I may be faced with a choice of the daughter objecting to her right to life being violated and the father demanding nobody intervene lest they violate his right to kill. I then have to decide which of these rights deserves more respect. From my perspective, the choice is clear.

 

[PRmerger]

The fundamental difference is my preferences for music, food, and such all apply specifically to what I do. With moral preferences, it goes beyond that. It’s not just that I don’t like killing, I don’t like any needless suffering or death- whether caused by disease, disaster, Godzilla, or other people.

Fundamental difference? Umm…no. That’s not fundamental at all. In fact, it’s the most superficial of differences you’ve described.

And who says he has a right to kill his daughter? You seem to presume that everyone has a right to do as their morals demand, but that principle need not be respected by everyone. Moreover I may be faced with a choice of the daughter objecting to her right to life being violated and the father demanding nobody intervene lest they violate his right to kill. I then have to decide which of these rights deserves more respect. From my perspective, the choice is clear.

The above is nothing but apologia for…

objective morality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The fundamental difference is my preferences for music, food, and such all apply specifically to what I do. With moral preferences, it goes beyond that. It’s not just that I don’t like killing, I don’t like any needless suffering or death- whether caused by disease, disaster, Godzilla, or other people.

And who says he has a right to kill his daughter? You seem to presume that everyone has a right to do as their morals demand, but that principle need not be respected by everyone. Moreover I may be faced with a choice of the daughter objecting to her right to life being violated and the father demanding nobody intervene lest they violate his right to kill. I then have to decide which of these rights deserves more respect. From my perspective, the choice is clear.

But your “choice” involves the imposition of YOUR moral values on someone else, therefore, it cannot be true that moral values are simply an expression of one’s subjective preferences because your “choice” is to override one person’s preferences by siding with another’s. You aren’t allowing subjective choices to determine the outcome, you are arbitrarily biased towards YOUR subjective preferences.

On what grounds do you decide? It cannot be merely on subjective grounds because those don’t provide an account for why you would choose to side with the daughter against the father other than that is YOUR preferred option, which isn’t in the least helpful BECAUSE someone else’s preference could be for the father against the daughter. Why is your preference the determinably correct one? You don’t say – you insist that it is for YOU, but so what? How does that justify your choice on non-arbitrary grounds?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Fundamental difference? Umm…no. That’s not fundamental at all. In fact, it’s the most superficial of differences you’ve described.

The former simply dictates what I will/won’t eat or listen to. The latter might implore me to fight against the effects of nature and other people’s actions. It’s the difference between disliking only my own suffering and disliking all suffering. I’d call that a fundamental difference, as it’s a shift from narrow self interest to a more “enlightened” self interest.

The above is nothing but apologia for…

objective morality.

https://imgur.com/zPYqH

Hardly. It’s me acting based on my subjective moral principles- which, as outlined above, can bring me into conflict with others. Nowhere have I appealed to some “objectively right” answer to moral questions.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

But your “choice” involves the imposition of YOUR moral values on someone else, therefore, it cannot be true that moral values are simply an expression of one’s subjective preferences because your “choice” is to override one person’s preferences by siding with another’s. You aren’t allowing subjective choices to determine the outcome, you are arbitrarily biased towards YOUR subjective preferences.

He acts on his preferences, I act on mine. Who says I can’t impose my moral preferences on him when there’s a direct conflict?

On what grounds do you decide? It cannot be merely on subjective grounds because those don’t provide an account for why you would choose to side with the daughter against the father other than that is YOUR preferred option, which isn’t in the least helpful BECAUSE someone else’s preference could be for the father against the daughter. Why is your preference the determinably correct one? You don’t say – you insist that it is for YOU, but so what? How does that justify your choice on non-arbitrary grounds?

There is no determinably correct answer, just conflicting groups. I don’t act because his preferences are wrong, but because mine demand action.

And in subjective morality land, wouldn’t all actions be “arbitrary” insofar as they are based on ultimately subjective principles? Thus, “don’t be arbitrary” isn’t a viable goal. Now, when a group of people agree on their set of principles they can agree that decisions based on those principles are acceptable, but any conflict with people not sharing those principles will ultimately be us vs them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And who says he has a right to kill his daughter? You seem to presume that everyone has a right to do as their morals demand, but that principle need not be respected by everyone. Moreover I may be faced with a choice of the daughter objecting to her right to life being violated and the father demanding nobody intervene lest they violate his right to kill. I then have to decide which of these rights deserves more respect. From my perspective, the choice is clear.

But then how do we acquire a social norm that society can honor if it all comes down to the differing interests of the father and the daughter?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, you can tell them anything. I’m not sure what the intention would be or how effective that would be in getting to the desired end. “God exists therefore you are wrong” just doesn’t sound very convincing.

It is most convincing but only if you believe in God. That is why the question of God’s existence supersedes all other questions. There is no question that is more constantly on everyone’s mind than this question: Does God exist? Even atheists are obsessed by the question, as they never seem to stop talking about it. But the reason they never stop talking about it is that they are not really convinced of their atheism, just because the reasons for being an atheist are not very convincing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

He acts on his preferences, I act on mine. Who says I can’t impose my moral preferences on him when there’s a direct conflict?

By the same token, who, then, says HE cannot impose HIS moral preferences on you when there is direct conflict?

Moral debate, then devolves into a mere power struggle precisely because you have removed the possibility that any morally binding determinations can exist for resolving disputes by the fact that you ground morality on purely autonomous subjective preference.

Note that this issue is resolved if subjectivity itself becomes a morally valid ground for ethical determinations based upon the existence of an absolute subjective ground for morality (God) in reality itself. This means that there would, then, exist a subjective standard for determining how subjects should comport themselves based upon the nature of what it means to be a subject rather than an object.

We don’t treat subjects as objects precisely because there is a qualititative difference between subjects and objects. That difference – the nature of subjective existence – becomes the ground for determining the rightness or wrongness of acts. Subjects should behave in certain ways because they are subjects capable of moral agency. That is how the case SHOULD be made – not upon the claim that subjects are islands of autonomy that have absolute rights to determine for themselves the rightness or wrongness of acts. That claim inevitably brings about moral chaos.

 

[Aloysium]

The former simply dictates what I will/won’t eat or listen to. The latter might implore me to fight against the effects of nature and other people’s actions. It’s the difference between disliking only my own suffering and disliking all suffering. I’d call that a fundamental difference, as it’s a shift from narrow self interest to a more “enlightened” self interest. . . It’s me acting based on my subjective moral principles- which, as outlined above, can bring me into conflict with others. Nowhere have I appealed to some “objectively right” answer to moral questions.

Ok, I’m thinking saying “objective morality” in my replies is like saying “Niagara Falls” in the old Vaudeville sketch. So, Imma gonna go with “enlightened”.

Now, enlightened has to do with bringing light, seeing things in a better light, getting closer to the truth.

Is it possible that enlightenment involves awareness that the ultimate truth is Love, that we were created by a loving God and that we were meant to love one another?

Clearly something has gone awry. What is just as true, is that we are wicked. To find our way back Home, we need to transcend that wickedness. Each religion has its way to overcoming our plight.

The Christian symbol of transcendence is the Cross. God has made the Way easy for us to regain our place in creation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Christian symbol of transcendence is the Cross. God has made the Way easy for us to regain our place in creation.

“For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:30

 

[PRmerger]

The former simply dictates what I will/won’t eat or listen to. The latter might implore me to fight against the effects of nature and other people’s actions.

Both, to use your words (verbatim): “apply specifically to what I do.”

There is no fundamental difference, at all, if we embrace your paradigm, between someone preferring to eat turnips and preferring to kill his daughter. Both, as you say “apply specifically to what” you do.

Hardly. It’s me acting based on my subjective moral principles- which, as outlined above, can bring me into conflict with others. Nowhere have I appealed to some “objectively right” answer to moral questions.

Look, Animal. We are agreed that liking turnips vs liking potatoes is a subjective thing.

And we are agreed that it would be absurd to tell someone that his liking turnips is wrong. It is what it is. Some people like turnips. Some hate turnips. Who’s to say, eh?

Now, let’s apply your paradigm. If morality is also subjective, like how one views turnips, it would be equally absurd to tell someone: killing your daughter is wrong. It is what it is. Some people think killing your daughter is wrong. Some people think killing your daughter is right. Who’s to say, eh?

Do you see the logical application of subjective morality here?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is most convincing but only if you believe in God.

This sounds like a specific case of a more general principal that if those involved in a discussion don’t agree on a premise of the discussion that arguments that require that premise won’t be agreed upon (although people may come to the same conclusions for differing reasons).

It is presented this way: an absolute truth exists; therefore you are wrong.

I’m going to guess your goal in presenting such an argument to some one would not be to convince them.

You’re not really addressing the issue, TS.

I don’t think we see the same thing as “the issue.” For me awareness of someone planning to take the life of another raises the issue on preventing follow through on the action (not that I would expect a person to make such a plan known to me).

If all morality is subjective, then without God/Absolute Truth, you have no logical reason for telling another person: it is wrong for you to kill your daughter because she wants a divorce.

So this is how it works then:

Hostage Taker: Give into my demands or things are going to get messy!
Negotiator Bill: Don’t do it! It’s wrong! Think of the impact it will have on your family!
Hostage Taker: Do you believe in God an absolute truth?
Negotiator Bill: What are you talking about? No?
Hostage Taker: Then you have no basis for telling me that I’m wrong! You have no logical basis for evaluating my actions.
Negotiator Jerry: I believe in God, and absolute TRUTH exists. You’re actions are wrong.
Hostage Taker: Oh, well I guess you are right. I’m freeing the hostages. Thanks for that persuasive statement. I see the TRUTH now!

 

[PRmerger]

I’m going to guess your goal in presenting such an argument to some one would not be to convince them.

Of course it would.

What a peculiar thing to say. Why would I not want to convince someone that, say, killing his daughter is wrong?