Can someone create an objective moral code apart from God?

[Sidekick]

I have just got done with a discussion with an atheist. We were talking about moral truths and values. He stated that there are some moral values or truths that all people just know because of human nature, such as a man should not kill another man. I began to pose questions upon him of how this moral code is a part of human nature. I wanted to direct him to the understanding that there has to be a high being that places this code into human nature, thus natural law.

My question is this though. Was Frederick Nietzsche right? If man takes God out of morality, the next highest thing must govern human law, the human will, which leads to a subjective moral code. So, can there be objective moral code apart from God?

 

[Katholish]

Such a code could not be based on a denial of God’s existence, but I think the Natural Law is operative and knowable without first accepting God’s existence. Perhaps it is easier for many of us to understand morality in terms of God as our end, and human actions being directed toward that end. I think we can have the same benefit if instead of understanding God as our ultimate end, we take happiness as our end (which is true enough–St. Thomas says that happiness is the proper end of man–we Christians understand, however, that being with God is the true source of happiness).

If we agree that the end of man is happiness, can we begin to derive a moral code from this? Certainly. The Natural Law spoken of by the Roman philosophers and understood by many of the Greeks was not based on their belief in the gods, but on their understanding of human nature. Does killing bring me closer to my true end (happiness)? No–not when you really understand what killing another person does to you. We all know that killing is wrong in a vague sense (it is written in the hearts of man so to speak), but the actual reasons of why it is wrong can be discovered and discussed by philosophical investigation.

 

[Dameedna]

I have just got done with a discussion with an atheist. We were talking about moral truths and values. He stated that there are some moral values or truths that all people just know because of human nature, such as a man should not kill another man. I began to pose questions upon him of how this moral code is a part of human nature. I wanted to direct him to the understanding that there has to be a high being that places this code into human nature, thus natural law.

There does not “have” to be a higher being for a moral code to exist within humans. Nor does an “objective” morality actually have to exist in the first place.

What are you trying to convince your friend of exactly? The concept of absolutes ? Or the concept of something existing outside of the universe? Are you trying to use morality as a way to achieve this?

 

[MindOverMatter]

There does not “have” to be a higher being for a moral code to exist within humans.

There does have to be If morality relates to objective truths.

If i say that its wrong to kill Jews. My claim is either true or fail regardless of how people personally feel about the act.

 

[Dameedna]

There does have to be If morality relates to objective truths.

If i say that its wrong to kill Jews. My claim is either true or fail regardless of how people personally feel about the act.

And who say’s morality has to relate to objective truths? And who is to decide what the “object” is and what it’s “truths” are.

Seriously, so many threads lately on this. Same ole same ole.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have just got done with a discussion with an atheist. We were talking about moral truths and values. He stated that there are some moral values or truths that all people just know because of human nature, such as a man should not kill another man. I began to pose questions upon him of how this moral code is a part of human nature. I wanted to direct him to the understanding that there has to be a high being that places this code into human nature, thus natural law.

My question is this though. Was Frederick Nietzsche right? If man takes God out of morality, the next highest thing must govern human law, the human will, which leads to a subjective moral code. So, can there be objective moral code apart from God?

look at what actually happens when soceities are given the oppurtunity to practice a morality seperate from G-d, you get the holocaust, mengeles’ experiments, stalins collectivisation, Maos’ cultural revolution. pol pots killing fields. etc. these societies alone have had more than a 100 million deaths in the last century.

there is no actual morality seperate from G-d, because man, no matter culture, language, or ethnicity, can and will justify anything

though i keep hearing atheists talk about some morality apart from G-d, when it is applied in the real world, you get genocide.

all you have to do is look at recent history to see the evidence.

 

[Dameedna]

look at what actually happens when soceities are given the oppurtunity to practice a morality seperate from G-d, you get the holocaust, mengeles’ experiments, stalins collectivisation, Maos’ cultural revolution. pol pots killing fields. etc. these societies alone have had more than a 100 million deaths in the last century.

Absolutely. You must fear those dreadful non catholic christians and a society that does not embrace it. If you do not, millions upon millions of people will die.

The choice is yours. Funnily enough, its kind of the same argument…that hitler used.

Fear-mungering at it’s finest. If you have the capacity to be manipulated by fear LIKE the germans were, then you are no better than them.

I would suggest overcoming your “fears” and try and see people for who they are. Just like Jesus did

 

[MindOverMatter]

And who say’s morality has to relate to objective truths? And who is to decide what the “object” is and what it’s “truths” are.

I am making no assertions. I am pointing out a fact that most people like yourself take for granted.

When i say something is wrong, if it is not to be a mere personal desire that i wish to impose on others, then it must reflect an objective truth about human behavior. If that is true, then certain metaphyiscal realities must be infered in order to account for moral truth. In otherwords we have to transcend the reality of physics and suppose a real existing objective standard to which we are subject.

If perfection is the objective foundation of all reality, then one can suppose that somebodies behavior is imperfect. If there is nothing but physical reality, then there is no basis for supposing that anybody’s behavior is in opposition to somekind of moral law. And so any idea of morality that we recieve from are senses is just a by-product of a blind evolution and has no meaning or connection with truth. It is just a fantasy that we impose on each other like religion.

 

[Dameedna]

When i say something is wrong, if it is not to be a mere personal desire that i wish to impose on others, then it must reflect an objective truth about human behavior.

The problem here is, when you make a decision about right or wrong, that truth is not “objective” in any way. It is about you, and your understanding of what is “objective”. Even if you make it for another, that does not define the moral behaviour as objective unless it is the object of “your” decision.

Which means, your objective truth because it is your decision , is ultimately subjective. It’s about who you are and what you believe.

If that is true, then certain metaphyiscal realities must be infered in order to account for moral truth. In otherwords we have to transcend the reality of physics and suppose a real existing objective standard to which we are subject.

 

[Sidekick]

There does not “have” to be a higher being for a moral code to exist within humans. Nor does an “objective” morality actually have to exist in the first place.

What are you trying to convince your friend of exactly? The concept of absolutes ? Or the concept of something existing outside of the universe? Are you trying to use morality as a way to achieve this?

I am not trying to convince my friend of anything but trying to understand what he bases his moral code upon. The problem I see with atheism is how they base any objective moral code.

Catholics understand that there is a natural law or moral code that all man can know and understand what is right and wrong. The reason there is this natural law or moral code because God created the world and direct all things to reach some ‘good.’ Man can observe things through his reason that actions are wrong when they harm these goods.

Example: Human life is a good. Man can reason murder is wrong because it destroys the good of human life. But all these goods are still instilled in nature by God. Now when we remove God from the picture I do not see how there can be anything good. It would all be determine up the individual subject. Human life would only be understood as good because majority of people agreed upon it. I believe slavery is a great example of this. In an atheist world, is slavery really wrong or evil? Human civilization has always had some form of slavery tell now. The places that have changed this were mostly cause by some form of religion.

There have been forms of atheistic moral code that have been introduced throughout history. An example I would like to bring up in Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism believes the what is good is determine upon when the most amount of pleasure and lest amount of pain is produce form the most amount of people. It is a noble form of consequentialism but there is dispute within itself. What is good pleasure? How does one determine what is a noble form of pleasure?

I guess my main point is that once God is taken out of the picture, it seems all moral truth or goodness becomes determined upon the majority of subjects. It seems there can be no moral objective truth because the man is the highest subject and thus man does not find the moral truth but just creates it. When there is a God or high being, man is in search to find the moral truth because it was created by God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The problem here is, when you make a decision about right or wrong, that truth is not “objective” in any way. It is about you, and your understanding of what is “objective”. Even if you make it for another, that does not define the moral behaviour as objective unless it is the object of “your” decision…

I never claimed that morality was objective or subjective. I merely stated what reality must become if one concludes the objectivity of morality. And if your going to claim that morality isn’t objective, then it is up to you to prove that. Otherwise, admit that this is just your belief.

You are making conclusions based on assumptions…

Anybody that took time to understand what it is that i was argueing for, would know that i made no assumptions. They would also know that i followed the rules of logic. If you think i didn’t, then prove it.

And while those assumptions exist, your logical conclusions can and probably will be wrong.

Since you claim it, you must prove that you are correct. Or admit that your assertions here, are only designed to give the mere illusion of reasonable arguement.

And every religious belief flows from there…

Prove it

Yes, we exist. We can know a bit more than that. But just a bit.

Believe what you like. It seems to me that morality has objective roots because i experience guilt and moral conscience. While it might be possible that these realities are merely products of illusions rooted in my brain and subjective consciousnous, I have no a-prior reason to suppose that such a thing is true. I have no a-prior reasons to deny the objectivity of them or my experience of them or what they infer. One can assert socail conditioning, but it seems more reasonable to me that morality is rooted in objective truth rather then not. Because of the nature and value of moral truth, I take it on faith; a faith based on common experience. And since it would serve the selfish agendas of those who wish to shape reality in there own image to push the concept that morality has no basis in objective truth, i have to admit that I’m sceptical and afraid of anybody who advocates subjectivism and claims they are looking for truth. More probably they are looking for naturalism.

 

[miguel]

there is no actual morality seperate from G-d, because man, no matter culture, language, or ethnicity, can and will justify anything…

I agree. Terms like morality, good, bad, have no fixed meaning apart from God…the absolute standard of goodness. I could see how a bunch of athiests might form some type of law for mutual survival…I won’t kill you if you don’t kill me…I won’t steal from you if you don’t steal from me. For the most part, we instinctively dislike killing me, or stealing from me, or sleeping with my wife. But what if my existence is deemed by the powerful to be “BAD” because I cling to a “BAD” belief in God? As you say, the “religion is the opiate of the people” crowd, when they had the chance to create utopia, pretty much flubbed it. Of course, without God as the reference, how does one even acknowldege that killing 100 million people is “BAD”? Afterall, the whole reason they’re dead is their perceived threat to the state. Isn’t it “GOOD” to be rid of all these threats to the state?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Absolutely. You must fear those dreadful non catholic christians and a society that does not embrace it. If you do not, millions upon millions of people will die

.

please use reason to support your position. nnobody said that. what i said is that the historical evidence of officially an unofficially atheistic societies has continually been genocidal, even when any cultural factors are removed.

that facts are that in the last century atheistic societies have led to genocidal behavior. they kill or ‘reeducate’ anyone who doesnt agree with them.

and it didn’t happen just once, but multiple times, crossing all cultural, linguistic, or ethnic boundaries.

atheists talk about morality, but when in power, in every instance thus far. they just killed the people who didn’t agree with them.

how do you propose that any new atheistic morality, would act any differently?

The choice is yours. Funnily enough, its kind of the same argument…that hitler used.

im not talking about a choice, im talking about what the consistent outcome of applied atheism has been.

calling me hitler wont change historical fact, it just makes it look like you are operating on emotion rather than reason.

Fear-mungering at it’s finest. If you have the capacity to be manipulated by fear LIKE the germans were, then you are no better than them.

i am only pointing out historical fact. there is no fear mongering in that.

further if the implication is that germans were manipulated by fear to some degree more than were the russians, the chinese, vietnamese, cambodians, cubans, eastern europeans, central asians, or any of the extremely ethnically diverse peoples who made up atheistic societies throughout the last century, than i need some evidence.

i dont care for the ethnocentric overtones of that comment.

I would suggest overcoming your “fears” and try and see people for who they are. Just like Jesus did

i am pointing out exactly who atheistic societies have been in the past. you may not like the implications they represent. but unless you can provide reasonable arguments as to how or why we should expect any further atheistic societies to act differently than they have repeatedly done so in the recent past.

we have to assume that all the pretty words in favor of subjective atheistic morality, is nothin more than putting fredsh lipstick on an ol pig.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree. Terms like morality, good, bad, have no fixed meaning apart from God…the absolute standard of goodness. I could see how a bunch of athiests might form some type of law for mutual survival…I won’t kill you if you don’t kill me…I won’t steal from you if you don’t steal from me. For the most part, we instinctively dislike killing me, or stealing from me, or sleeping with my wife. But what if my existence is deemed by the powerful to be “BAD” because I cling to a “BAD” belief in God? As you say, the “religion is the opiate of the people” crowd, when they had the chance to create utopia, pretty much flubbed it. Of course, without God as the reference, how does one even acknowldege that killing 100 million people is “BAD”? Afterall, the whole reason they’re dead is their perceived threat to the state. Isn’t it “GOOD” to be rid of all these threats to the state?

having spent a lot of time on atheism, its reasoning and moral outomes, i am coming to believe that it is more an emotional position than a rational one.

a threat to the state was the justification for murder. given power again, how long before christians were once again a threat to the state?

 

[jaiyen]

I have just got done with a discussion with an atheist. We were talking about moral truths and values. He stated that there are some moral values or truths that all people just know because of human nature, such as a man should not kill another man. I began to pose questions upon him of how this moral code is a part of human nature. I wanted to direct him to the understanding that there has to be a high being that places this code into human nature, thus natural law.

My question is this though. Was Frederick Nietzsche right? If man takes God out of morality, the next highest thing must govern human law, the human will, which leads to a subjective moral code. So, can there be objective moral code apart from God?

I believe so. Developing a moral code is twofold because there are cultural moral codes and individual moral codes. They are really about choices. Some cultures have a set of behavioral standards based on its own underlying philosophy - and individuals choose a moral code, typically based on the cultures in which they were raised.

Objective… as in universal… probably not. With or without God, culture plays a huge role.

~Jai Yen

 

[severntofall]

As a non-believer, I do not believe that a 100% objective (true and revlevent in every situation and circumstance) can exist. Big deal. None-the-less, I am certain that our every notion of morality comes from within our species rather than some external source. We would (and IMO do) have a moral system whether there exists a god or not.

 

[MindOverMatter]

As a non-believer, I do not believe that a 100% objective (true and revlevent in every situation and circumstance) can exist. Big deal. None-the-less, I am certain that our every notion of morality comes from within our species rather than some external source. We would (and IMO do) have a moral system whether there exists a god or not.

So long as our present condition doesn’t neccesitate the existence of God, you would be correct in your anaylse. But you do agree that there is no such thing as moral truth, do you not?
What i mean by this is that the holocust was wrong regardless of whether any of us agree or not. You reject universal objective truth. Do you not?

 

[MindOverMatter]

As a non-believer, I do not believe that a 100% objective (true and revlevent in every situation and circumstance) can exist.

It cannot exist full stop.

 

[severntofall]

So long as our present condition doesn’t neccesitate the existence of God, you would be correct in your anaylse. But you do agree that there is no such thing as moral truth, do you not?

I believe that there are things that are true. One thing that is true is that most people (regardless their religious allegiance) do not wish to live in an environment where people are allowed to harm one another without consequence (in fact the few people who do want such a thing tend to be religious extremists). Most of us wish to live in an environment where we will be allowed to live peaceful with the freedom to live as we would please, with the understanding that there are necessary limits to this freedom. People don’t wish to live in chaos and do understand that actions have consequences.

What i mean by this is that the holocust was wrong regardless of whether any of us agree or not. You reject universal objective truth. Do you not?

While I do reject universal truths in terms of morality (morality cannot be found under a microscope), I can honestly claim that the Holocaust was wrong. Now, of course the Germany and Austria in which these crimes occurred were heavily Christian at the time. I personally can see no historical evidence that moral absolutes (if they exists) have ever honestly had any impact upon our behavior as a species. I reject the holocaust for the same reason that I oppose the genocide inflicted upon the Mideanites and the inhabitants of Jericho (read the OT if you are wondering about these references); a world in which such behavior is permitted is a very dangerous world for all it’s inhabitants (that would include me). For this reason, I am actually opposed to abortion; while I can no longer be a victim of such an act, I can be a victimized by a world where human life has no value.

 

[Namesake]

As a non-believer, I do not believe that a 100% objective (true and revlevent in every situation and circumstance) can exist. Big deal. None-the-less, I am certain that our every notion of morality comes from within our species rather than some external source. We would (and IMO do) have a moral system whether there exists a god or not.

If that weren’t true we couldn’t have evolved as we have. Basically we must be a cooperative species.