How would you understand “self” in this scenario? We’d have to explore that in order to clarify what is best, right?If such were true, man’s only logical morality would be “What is best for self?”.
Maybe one would choose to do good things, but only because it makes the self feel good or somehow benefits one’s self. There is no reason not to do bad things, so long as it doesn’t have negative consequences for one’s self.
In fact, good and bad become irrelevant terms. There is only what pleases me and what doesn’t.
Becoming your own god is the only logical alternative, because nothing else matters.
This is as ridiculous as it is offensive. You’ll find there are several Atheistic systems across history hanging from the Samurai code to Communism that have very strict ethical systems regarding communal support, self sacrifice for others, loyalty, harm and benefit to a community, mercy and so on and so forth.If such were true, man’s only logical morality would be “What is best for self?”.
Maybe one would choose to do good things, but only because it makes the self feel good or somehow benefits one’s self. There is no reason not to do bad things, so long as it doesn’t have negative consequences for one’s self.
In fact, good and bad become irrelevant terms. There is only what pleases me and what doesn’t.
Becoming your own god is the only logical alternative, because nothing else matters.
I imagine my thoughts about morality and what my moral opinions would look like would be identical to what they were before turning back to God.
What were they then?
I suspect that my system of morality would change very little…except for the fact that I would probably be more likely to sleep later on Sunday morning.
It boiled down to ME and NOW and nobody else human or divine mattered!
Behaviour for me not much had changed since I lost the conviction that the Christian god-concept was factual. But the change in view had happened over time and a lot of my views on morality were and still are anchored on empathy.
That is not correct since it was so then accepting the idea of God is also based on self interest. The same applies to the rest of your post.
It depends. For those who are love God and love their neighbors as Christ taught then their morality derived from their core goodness would not change much if a all. On the other hand those whose mortality is based mostly on an irrational fear of God would likely change drastically.
Famous last words echoing from the beginning of human time.
Theoretically, many of my moral beliefs would remain the same, since they are not solely justified by scripture (the exception being certain elements of positive law, ie. that one must attend Mass on Sunday).
I imagine it is one of many common responses to such a change in conviction.
They would probably look very much as they did before, somewhat altered to accomodate my sinfulness, but fundamentally the same.
It’s Dawson’s “Secular Christian.”Depends on how one interprets “best for self”. Best for self also includes making things better for those you care about and quite often for those you dislike. Morality would come from the question “what if someone did this to me?”If such were true, man’s only logical morality would be “What is best for self?”.
Maybe one would choose to do good things, but only because it makes the self feel good or somehow benefits one’s self. There is no reason not to do bad things, so long as it doesn’t have negative consequences for one’s self.
In fact, good and bad become irrelevant terms. There is only what pleases me and what doesn’t.
Becoming your own god is the only logical alternative, because nothing else matters.
But there is no point in morality if you can get away with anything.
But it is a fallacy to think that one could get away with anything. How one treats others determines how others treat them. The point would be to make the world a better place.
Getting away isn’t necessarily the motivation for some one establishing morality. Application of the Golden or platinum rule is an often referenced guideline. But the boundaries of what is included in the objects/subjects of one’s concern is significant. It could one’s self, family, community, be based on some in-group/out group duvisions, and may even reach into including animals, future generations, and even ecosystems. A person may develop behavioural rules intended to protect or improve the lives of those included as subjects/out beats of concern.