If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[ThinkingSapien]

mcteague:

One person is not inherently more valuable than another.

This is an assertion without proof and seems on its face to be false - as mankind throughout history has surely acted as if this was untrue.

On the contrary, it’s true by definition. There is no value without a valuer and the valuers (people) do not assign the same value to each other. While mcteague did not provide proof of his assertion proof can easily be found. We can get an idea for the value that one person assigns to another though a number of different reactions when a person dies or their well being is threatened. An example of personal significance is how would you (or how have you) reacted when a loved one died vs. when a neighbor died or when a stranger dies? How much effort, time, and money is a parent willing to invest in their own child’s future vs. another person’s child? The answers will vary because values vary.

 

[JoeofCupertino]

Dostoesvsky did not say that. A character did, Ivan Karamazov. In fact, that’s not even an accurate quotation.

And in response, I might say that all things may be permitted (by us), but all things may be prohibited (by us). Simone de Beauvoir, in her work ‘The Ethics of Ambiguity’ has much to say about this. Without God, our sins are unpardonable. That means we are terribly, terribly responsible. A world without God is one where our actions are immensely important. There is no one else to blame it on, no excuse to turn to, no one to make us clean.

In a world without God all we logically should do is eat, sleep, drink and be merry for tomorow we die. Why should I care about anything other than myself and what I want? Why is there even a government or law? Almost every law system in the world is based on a religious morality. Even “ethics” are based upon religious philosophy. Without a God, all of these are just the wishful thinking of animals.

I have never heard of any other creatures on this planet that talk about morals and ethics. Scientists are pretty careful about trying to project human views on animal actions. As such, there are many things that are left only to the human domain. Why is it that we humans feel betrayed and get violent and emotional when one gets cheated on by a lover? Indeed, even our cloest animal relatives do not have these sexul and moral mores and reactions. The closest thing to sexual morality and emotion in the wild are bonobos that can be defensive of outsiders. However, even they are not emotionally invested and become jealous. Jealousy is a purely human emotion. Where many of these evolved and why they are necessary only for humans is a question science has no answer for.

Indeed, when we talk about right and wrong and good and evil we need to define what those things are and say why those things are as they are. Why is killing bad? Isnt killing just a form of natural selection and competition for limited resources. Why is rape bad? No other animal has such a concept. You might be able to say that rape is simply a man trying to spread his genes on to the next generation. It is simply a biological function and if the woman objects there is always abortion.

If there is no God, why have birth control pills and condoms beyond disease control? Why not abort more often? What is wrong about killing when there is no consequences for it?

To say if there is a good person without God one must define objectively what is good and why there is a such thing as good. Otherwise, we are really just kidding ourselves with wacky philosophies that waste our time and put unnecessary restrictions on us. In a world without God, only an anarchistic or purely libertarian world is logical given that those philosophies lend to give greater freedom to the individual at the expense of the ridiculous human construct of law and order.

 

[mcteague]

You start a lot of comments with “you seem to be claiming…”. Why don’t you just respond to what I actually say? I have not asked for a complete moral system, my question was much smaller: demonstrate that right and wrong exist.
No, you missed the point. You made an assertion; I merely pointed out that there seemed to be little reason to accept that assertion in light of the fact that few people have ever acted as if they believed it was true. That is, it is not commonly believed, not obvious, and there is no reason to accept it. But again, you misconstrue the debate. Anything can be the basis of a moral system; the question is whether that basis can be more than personal preference, because if that’s all it is then the term is essentially meaningless.
No, the OP was specific: why be good if God does not exist? My response was that it makes no sense to try. Your response has been … unresponsive.

Ender

I say “you seem to be claiming” because there are implications in things we say that we may not be aware of. I am sure it is sometimes true for me also. The things I have criticised are implied by your arguments. You do not have to actually say them. They follow logically from your other statements.

Personally, I thought the original post was asking a much more simple question. If there was no threat of hell, why would anyone act in ways we call good? But you and some others have put some of the conversation on this path. I don’t mind. That is not a criticism.

If you had claimed that we can have more confidence in a moral system which originates from God, I would have agreed. But you have not said that. You have said that the idea of morality, the idea of right and wrong, can not exist without God. This is just to overreaching. It is actually hard to figure out what you mean by that. You could mean many different things. You could mean that morality requires an objective standard which can only be provided by a perfect authority figure like God. You could mean with God nothing would exist therefore morality would not exist. You could mean many things.

But to the degree that I think I understand you when you ask me to prove that right and wrong exist. They would not exist in the way you think they do now. As some absolute presented to us by God. But we could, and would, create them.

The fact that that morality in the absence of God would be different than that with God only means it would be a different morality. Not that there would be no morality. You only see it that way because that is how you insist on defining the terms. I said that in an earlier post. It is still true

I have actually been very responsive to your claims.

 

[Ender]

You have said that the idea of morality, the idea of right and wrong, can not exist without God.

Not exactly. The concept of morality can exist whether or not God exists; what I question is whether that concept can be valid in such a case. We have many different moral systems now so clearly the idea exists, but, just as people once believed in witches and dragons, believing something doesn’t make it true.

You could mean that morality requires an objective standard which can only be provided by a perfect authority figure like God.

I believe for morality to be more than opinion it must be objectively true. Whether objective truth depends on God we can get to later; let’s start with one claim at a time. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that for morality to exist it must be objectively true?

They would not exist in the way you think they do now.

I certainly agree that other moral systems can be created and they would be different than what we have now, the question is in what sense can they be called moral. Do you have a definition of “morality” you’d like to offer?

The fact that that morality in the absence of God would be different than that with God only means it would be a different morality. Not that there would be no morality. You only see it that way because that is how you insist on defining the terms.

I haven’t defined the terms; I’m asking you to do that.

Ender

 

[Nooj]

In a world without God all we logically should do is eat, sleep, drink and be merry for tomorow we die

Isn’t that what you do now? Isn’t that all you do now?

 

[mcteague]

Fine

Morality is a social and historical construct of shared values agreed upon by a self defined group, or in the absence of a group by an individual.

 

[mcteague]

Fine

Morality is a social and historical construct of shared values agreed upon by a self defined group, or in the absence of a group by an individual.

Add

Upon which behavior is regulated

 

[LostTruth28]

I am not poking holes in your beliefs. I am poking holes in your reasoning. Morality is a means of differentiating right from wrong. The claim that right from wrong can not be differentiated in the absence of God is clearly false.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that right and wrong are universals. Let’s also assume that the morality of the Catholic God articulates those universals perfectly.
You seem to be arguing that the only way to discern those universals is through revelation. That is that man is by nature such a brute that without God he could not reason that killing is wrong. That man could not reason any conception of right or wrong. That seems preposterous.
I’ll ask the same question I did in my first post in this thread. If you lost your faith, or if there were no God, would you be raping your 13 year old neighbor? Would be a murderer? Of course not. So clearly there is some means to differentiate right from wrong in the absence of God. Your claim can only be true if we accept a truly horrendous definition if what man is or can be.

Oh how this topic has always fascinated me! You asked if “I” (I’m taking as a general statement so to apply it to myself ) Would rape my 13 year old neighbor or murderer. And I would respond with this. If heaven is not a place to go and God has no place in the universe, what wrong is there in claiming myself god and making for myself a heaven to which all will be made in my image? The God we know and love [Allows] ← (Important word) children of all ages to suffer and die at the hands of men and nature. So if her suffering brought about my “heaven”…

Now don’t take this to mean that I would be inclined to do such a thing under normal circumstances. But, if there is no eternal happiness with God? Who do you serve by being good? I’m not saying evil would be the only option, I’m simply saying evil would no longer be evil.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Fine

Morality is a social and historical construct of shared values agreed upon by a self defined group, or in the absence of a group by an individual.

“Shared values” is just a euphemism for “opinion”. All this position reduces to is morality=peoples opinion.

 

[Ender]

Morality is a social and historical construct of shared values agreed upon by a self defined group, or in the absence of a group by an individual … Upon which behavior is regulated

Good, let’s examine this. First, by this definition, the rules governing the play of every sport would qualify as moral values as they meet all of your criteria. Second, since each group determines its own “values”, those values are by (your) definition moral and there is no way to claim that one set of values is more or less moral than any other set. Your conditions eliminate the possibility that morality can be objectively true and since it can only be subjective, morals - in your world - are neither more nor less than individual preferences. That being so, the OP’s question is meaningless. Given that morality is whatever we believe it to be we cannot help but be good … since good is whatever we believe it to be.

Ender

 

[Charlemagne_II]

nooj

**There is no one else to blame it on, no excuse to turn to, no one to make us clean. **

That is why in a godless world we are all dirty and there is no one to make us clean.

 

[mcteague]

Good, let’s examine this. First, by this definition, the rules governing the play of every sport would qualify as moral values as they meet all of your criteria. Second, since each group determines its own “values”, those values are by (your) definition moral and there is no way to claim that one set of values is more or less moral than any other set. Your conditions eliminate the possibility that morality can be objectively true and since it can only be subjective, morals - in your world - are neither more nor less than individual preferences. That being so, the OP’s question is meaningless. Given that morality is whatever we believe it to be we cannot help but be good … since good is whatever we believe it to be.

Ender

Well first I will admit that there are some problems my definition of morality. A little to broad, but okay for our purposes. I suppose its like someone once said of pornography. “I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.”
I never claimed that morality is or must be objectivley true. I would actually argue the opposite. But that does not mean we can not determine something to be moral or not.
We can make further distinctions. The conclusion you are drawing denies the idea of progress. Your analysis suggests that the absence of an objective, God presented, morality forces us all to become sociopaths. Which is what we would be if our beliefs changed instantly with no concern for rational consistency.
If in our model of a non permanent, non objective, moral system we call something wrong and then do that wrong thing we have several choices. We could create a more particular definition of the wrong based on this new experience and information. We could decide that it was never wrong, and have a completely new moral system for each moment. Which seems to be what you are suggesting is our only choice. Or we could accept the moral principle we have in place. That is we could just say we were wrong.

The absence of some objectively true moral standard does leave open the possibilty of never being able to define a moral standard at all. But that, as I said, sounds like what a sociopath would do. What you describe is one possible result of having no objective moral standard. But it is not the only path we can take. You write as if it were inevitable when it is not. I think your point is valid as a possible result of having no permanent, objective, moral standard. But I do not think your final conclussion is really supported by the evidence because other choices still exist. In my opinion it goes to far and is not a vaild deduction.

 

[fhansen]

This occurred to me just now. Have any philosophers (either theists/atheists) answered this question?

If God doesn’t exist, I’m not sure how we’d arrive at defining anything as “good”.

 

[Ender]

I never claimed that morality is or must be objectively true. I would actually argue the opposite. But that does not mean we can not determine something to be moral or not.

If morality does not objectively exist then morality is nothing more than an arbitrary code of behavior. We can certainly devise such codes but we would have no way to say that one set of codes was more moral than any other set. We might be able to say that one was more useful than another, but we could not say which was more moral.

The conclusion you are drawing denies the idea of progress. Your analysis suggests that the absence of an objective, God presented, morality forces us all to become sociopaths.

Stop - you keep ascribing conclusions to me that are completely unwarranted. If you disagree with something I’ve said then cite the statement and rebut it, but there is no point in dismissing conclusions I haven’t drawn.

The absence of some objectively true moral standard does leave open the possibilty of never being able to define a moral standard at all.

It leaves open the possibility of devising standards of behavior but they would simply be laws or rules, not true moral values because, if moral values do not objectively exist, we cannot create them. As I said, you could no more assert that the guidelines drawn up by an order of monks was any more moral than those used by a tribe of cannibals unless there was a non-arbitrary set of moral standards by which to measure them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If God doesn’t exist, I’m not sure how we’d arrive at defining anything as “good”.

I feel confusion when I read this. You don’t know what is good or bad if you don’t have God? And, specifically your God.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If God doesn’t exist, I’m not sure how we’d arrive at defining anything as “good”.

What is it about God that legitimizes morality? Is it guaranteed enforcement?

What if God existed but he never punished anyone, or alternatively never rewarded anyone? Would there still be incentive to be good?

 

[fhansen]

I feel confusion when I read this. You don’t know what is good or bad if you don’t have God? And, specifically your God.

There either is a God or there isn’t-there is no “my God”. If there is no superior mind or power to determine our natures, including our morality, then there’s nothing but ourselves to do so, and I’d submit that while our non-subjugation to a higher power may seem like a positive freedom, it also allows for the possibility, in the individual human psyche, of a morality that may even encompass such behavior as genocide as a plausible moral option-which is exactly what “genocidists” do. And such people may or may not have a religious affiliation.

The Christian position is that there is a God who means to be the god of man in a real, ontological sense-to indwell us-but only if we’re willing and only to the extent we’re willing and only for whatever time we’re willing-because there seems to be, simultaneously, an unwillingness-a resistance- within us to doing this very thing, as if we prefer no higher authority to be subjugated to, even, perhaps, if this turned out to be the right/best/most natural thing for us. Of course this all depends on there actually being a God, and one having such inclinations, and one who would reveal his will to those at least willing to consider it.

 

[fhansen]

What is it about God that legitimizes morality? Is it guaranteed enforcement?

What if God existed but he never punished anyone, or alternatively never rewarded anyone? Would there still be incentive to be good?

Well, it’s not really any different than nature “telling” us that, if we jump off a cliff, there’s a price to pay.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If morality does not objectively exist then morality is nothing more than an arbitrary code of behavior. We can certainly devise such codes but we would have no way to say that one set of codes was more moral than any other set. We might be able to say that one was more useful than another, but we could not say which was more moral.

Sounds like that could be applied against a good number of systems of law that I’ve looked at. While they may have been motivated by some ones wish to promote good it isn’t always immediately clear what changes could be applied to the law to make it more moral. A code of behaviour by itself doesn’t seem sufficient.

It helps if the people within a society have some concern for one another and value each other’s well being. When two people value each other’s well being then they have some motivation for being “good” to each other even in the absence of a defined moral code. While a concern for others can be nurtured withing some one, it’s not something that can be forced into some one and there do exists people within a society that don’t hold much value in the well being of others have no concern for the well being of others (ranging from egotistic to psychopathic). Concern for avoiding punishment may contribute to some self constraint, but when a situation arises where there is an appearance that one can get away without being punished I don’t know how such a person would be motivate to make decisions that try to minimize harm on others.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Well, it’s not really any different than nature “telling” us that, if we jump off a cliff, there’s a price to pay.

So if, as I suggested, we define morality as the minimization of suffering, then isn’t it also legitimate? After all, the price we’d pay for being immoral is additional and unnecessary suffering.