Is Morality possible without God

[PickyPicky]

Put it down to a late night. Or dotage

Never mind. I expect o_mlly is vastly flattered to be taken for me.

 

[o_mlly]

And who makes the decision that this authority has the correct answer? …

An important but different question. The OP asks an ontological question: Is there an objective morality? You ask an epistemological one which implies an affirmative answer to the former: How do we know that that answer is correct?

The fact that they ‘make up their mind’ is the very definition of subjective.

That which is objective (real) is singular and fixed. The subjective is arbitrary and changeable. That competing subjective opinions are claimed does not render the truth about the matter into objective oblivion.

 

[o_mlly]

Never mind. I expect o_mlly is vastly flattered to be taken for me.

Typo in the above: the “fl” should be “sh”. Anyway, I suspect dotage to be the root cause.

 

[Vonsalza]

And who makes the decision that this authority has the correct answer?

It’s implicit in the authority itself because that’s really its purpose - to be that authority. It’s an assumed. It’s God’s answer to Job that “I AM THAT I AM”.

No one makes the decision if Jaguar God is right or wrong. Jaguar God does. Your only choice is if you’re going to follow Jaguar God and if you’re prepared for an ostracized and likely shortened life should you defect.

The fact that they ‘make up their mind’ is the very definition of subjective. Whether the authority they decide to accept is correct or not is beside the point.

Not true. If I decide that, on the whole, the laws of Norway or Tyr God are better than the laws of the US or Christian Yahweh, I’m still subject to the laws of the US and the laws of a Christian Yahweh dominated society. My dissent doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t change anything.

If I decide Right of Might is the greatest of all morals and engage in pilfering and egoist “depravity”, then I’ll be hunted and executed by US officials for violating society’s laws ultimately rooted in the name of “Our Creator” (which in the US is decidedly Christian Yahweh).

And in passing, the original post mentioning dead horses was actually flagged by someone as being inappropriate. What the…? Maybe someone who has English as a second language believed I was advocating equine cruelty.

It’s odd. It’s like were silently subject to someone’s arbitrary view on what constitutes allowed discussion. I thought the latest go on heII v.s. annihilation was going to be interesting. It was locked after just a handful of comments… shakes head

A more rational explanation is based on the fact that I have had half a dozen posts flagged in the last 3 or 4 weeks which is half a dozen more than in the last few years. I’m pretty certain that my posting ‘style’ hasn’t changed but maybe I’m becoming more paranoid.

No. I think the more limited moderation of the new board has very recently inspired more subjective enforcement by fewer parties, based on appearances. But just a guess. No certainty here.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And who makes the decision that this authority has the correct answer? …

An important but different question. The OP asks an ontological question: Is there an objective morality? You ask an epistemological one which implies an affirmative answer to the former: How do we know that that answer is correct?

The fact that they ‘make up their mind’ is the very definition of subjective.

That which is objective (real) is singular and fixed. The subjective is arbitrary and changeable. That competing subjective opinions are claimed does not render the truth about the matter into objective oblivion.

The op doesn’t ask if there is an objective morality. It asks if there can be morality (in either form) without God. And the answer to that is a definite yes. Rather obviously.

If you want to take it further and ask if that morality is either objective or subjective then for my point of view you will need to have read my posts in this thread. But to save you going back (I’ve missed a few days)…

Some aspects of morality (those which have got us to this point in time) have obviously worked. Else we wouldn’t be here talking about them. And they are objective in that they were not chosen by anyone. They were not subject to the whims and mores of any particular time. Evolution has sifted out that which doesn’t work and has left us with that which does. So they are, by any reasonable definition of the term, objective.

Now whether they could be classed as good or The Truth or some ephemeral interpretation of what any given person or group or society classes as such is yet another matter again. But bare in mind that should any person or group or society interpret a moral act as good or bad then it becomes, again by definition, subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And who makes the decision that this authority has the correct answer?

It’s implicit in the authority itself because that’s really its purpose - to be that authority. It’s an assumed. It’s God’s answer to Job that “I AM THAT I AM”.

No one makes the decision if Jaguar God is right or wrong. Jaguar God does. Your only choice is if you’re going to follow Jaguar God and if you’re prepared for an ostracized and likely shortened life should you defect.

The fact that they ‘make up their mind’ is the very definition of subjective. Whether the authority they decide to accept is correct or not is beside the point.

Not true. If I decide that, on the whole, the laws of Norway or Tyr God are better than the laws of the US or Christian Yahweh, I’m still subject to the laws of the US and the laws of a Christian Yahweh dominated society. My dissent doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t change anything.

If I decide Right of Might is the greatest of all morals and engage in pilfering and egoist “depravity”, then I’ll be hunted and executed by US officials for violating society’s laws ultimately rooted in the name of “Our Creator” (which in the US is decidedly Christian Yahweh).

What does retribution or punishment have to do with it? There is a reason why you don’t steal and cheat (within reason) and it’s because you are the product of a system that wouldn’t have worked unless the majority thought it wrong to steal and cheat. You have linked to a book that actually explains this.

If you want to buck the system (and lots do) then fear of punishment might be a deterrent. But punishment (within the law) is just a codified realisation that the system works and it might be a good idea to enforce it rather than let nature take its own sweet time about it.

That’s why you are punished for stealing but not for masturbation. One is detrimental to society and the other is not. But then stealing is objectively wrong, you say. Well…yes. But only in the sense that no-one decided that. It was decided for us.

 

[Vonsalza]

What does retribution or punishment have to do with it? There is a reason why you don’t steal and cheat (within reason) and it’s because you are the product of a system that wouldn’t have worked unless the majority thought it wrong to steal and cheat. You have linked to a book that actually explains this.

No, it’s wrong to steal or cheat from your tribesman. But the other tribe on the other side of the river? Stealing and cheating from them for the sake of your own tribe isn’t nearly as sinful, if it’s sinful at all.

Religion is suggested as the first glue that started unifying whole familial tribes and helping “us” congeal into city-states. We all got together under Baal. But the neighboring city-state worshipped Melqart. One subjected the other, but the peace was uneasy. However, through great revelation from the sacred mystics, it turns out Baal and Melqart are actually part of the same pantheon, or are amalgamated into one god.

Identity as “us” then expanded. The new them (since ‘us’ existentially requires a ‘them’) was now those heretical worshipers of the false god Ra to our southwest. repeat cycle until equilibrium (stalemate) is achieved.

That’s why you are punished for stealing but not for masturbation.

Absurd. Everyone knows you go to hell for masturbating.

 

[o_mlly]

Absurd. Everyone knows you go to hell for masturbating.

Please re-post in a larger bold font. They are going blind, you know.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

What does retribution or punishment have to do with it? There is a reason why you don’t steal and cheat (within reason) and it’s because you are the product of a system that wouldn’t have worked unless the majority thought it wrong to steal and cheat. You have linked to a book that actually explains this.

No, it’s wrong to steal or cheat from your tribesman. But the other tribe on the other side of the river? Stealing and cheating from them for the sake of your own tribe isn’t nearly as sinful, if it’s sinful at all.

Religion is suggested as the first glue that started unifying whole familial tribes and helping “us” congeal into city-states. We all got together under Baal. But the neighboring city-state worshipped Melqart. One subjected the other, but the peace was uneasy. However, through great revelation from the sacred mystics, it turns out Baal and Melqart are actually part of the same pantheon, or are amalgamated into one god.

Identity as “us” then expanded. The new them (since ‘us’ existentially requires a ‘them’) was now those heretical worshipers of the false god Ra to our southwest. repeat cycle until equilibrium (stalemate) is achieved.

Agreed to a point. Not stealing is good for forming a society. But stealing is good if it’s external to your society. Land, crops, women. Therein lies the problem.There is too much us and them. And if one side appears to be just like the other then everyone cranks the rhetoric up a notch.

In unison: ‘I mean, they even worship the wrong god!’

 

[o_mlly]

But bare in mind that should any person or group or society interpret a moral act as good or bad then it becomes, again by definition, subjective.

Again, reality (objective morality) is singular and independent of the thinking mind. Its existence does not depend on anyone, anywhere or at any time knowing it as such. To claim so would relieve rational persons of the obligation to search for the truth.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think it’s inherent to the intelligent human animal. “Us and them”.

Even supposed enlightened humanists have the backward, ignorant religious folk to look down upon (fulfilling the “them” requirement).

Here is likely where we disagree on an axiomatic level, if I had a guess. You think we can be “one” as a species in any meaningful way?

 

[Bradskii]

I think it’s inherent to the intelligent human animal. “Us and them”.

Here is likely where we disagree on an axiomatic level, if I had a guess. You think we can be “one” as a species in any meaningful way?

The fact that we are not ‘one’ is the result of millions of years of mindless sifting and discarding and fine tuning. We are not easily reprogrammed. But the process is not mindless now. We can choose our destiny.

I’m optimistic.