Is Morality possible without God

[laylow]

On that particular example I’d be pretty quick to remind you of the secular arguments against the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality in sexually reproducing species is an anomaly. I don’t need a god to tell you that.

I agree, but it is still a human rights issue. Golden rule based.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

On that particular example I’d be pretty quick to remind you of the secular arguments against the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality in sexually reproducing species is an anomaly. I don’t need a god to tell you that.

I agree, but it is still a human rights issue. Golden rule based.

Eh, Golden Rule is an amplifier. It supports Right of Might as well as your gentler concepts of humanism. Not really a morality unto itself.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, morality is possible without the existence of G-d, just as different kinds of belief in G-d, i.e. religions, have their own variations in morality. People have to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not, just as religion decides. It is often rather complicated in the real world and in extreme situations, as we can see in moral dilemma problems. Essentially, whatever personal moral values one adopts are an individual choice and whatever moral values a given society or culture adopts are based not only on religion but on common human values and norms of behavior, including justice, fairness, compassion, equity, as well as legal rules and regulations that bind a society or culture together.

 

[Ender]

Just bypass your deity as a reference and just assess situations as we all do. If you don’t know if you landed on a good or bad action as a result

I haven’t referenced a deity. I asked a very specific question for which I am not getting a very specific answer.

Why should I not always and in every situation do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest?

No, it means both you and I refer to our morality and allow that to influence our behaviour, and neither of us considers only our own best interest. We believe we should do this because our morality tells us so. And our morality is produced primarily by empathy.

This is not helpful. In trying to decide what my moral views ought to be, why should I not decide on whatever is in my best interest?

People have to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not

If I decide to always act in my best interest is there any way to assert that this is not as moral a system as anyone elses?

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Objective morality is an impossible without a higher authority. That should be self-evident. Throughout history there have been cultures that believe in human sacrifice and the like, and in our culture now you see that many people believe things that are sins to be morally neutral or even good. So the answer has to be No.

 

[Damian]

Why should I not always and in every situation do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest?

I believe you are, sometimes it benefits the society and friends as well sometimes it doesn’t because you have determined that somethings supersede what is in the best interest of others as they understand it. The group may believe that child brides are in the best interest for them or advocating against birth control, but you may understand that is not actually in yours or their best interest. When this comes into conflict you have to discuss with everyone why this is the case. For group 1 they reference their holy texts while group 2 reference studies performed on individuals and groups of people for what creates the optimal practices for social and individual betterment. If you can’t convince either one who has a better point of reference, then you’re at an impasse and you keep hammering away at it until you work it out.

 

[meltzerboy2]

If acting in your best interest harms others, there is a way for society, as well as individuals, to assert that your behavior is not as moral as behaviors which do not harm others. We have laws, customs, cultures which make those assertions.

Besides, I’m sure you and I and most of us act in our best interest on a daily basis much of the time. Even adopting a particular religious belief and practicing it is no doubt in our best interest, is it not? So long as our best interest does not harm others, it is generally considered moral even if it is self-centered.

 

[Damian]

What do people do when they believe they have god on their side?
1: Force indigenous children into religious schools after being kidnapped from their tribe
2: Child brides
3: anti-science
4: Genital branding of infants
5: Holy Wars
6: Dark Ages
7: Stagnation of science and math progress
8: Women and children as property
9: Genocides
10: Protection of child rapists for church unity
11: Child sacrifice
12: Disownment of family members
13: etc.

People indulge in their darkest sides once they believe they are immune from prosecution from their deity or the state.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I would argue the reverse: there are consequences to ALL our actions, whether physical, psychological, philosophical, or spiritual, short-term or long-term. Many of these consequences we are not even aware of, but they surely exist.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Okey dokey

 

[meltzerboy2]

Not necessarily the same list, but those who do NOT believe in G-d have also committed crimes on a large scale. Yet, I somewhat agree with you and Bob Dylan on this issue. (But omit #4, please LOL.)

 

[Damian]

I believe the list is fair since I wasn’t being specific to any religion, just the people that use a deity as their excuse for bad behavior. I also agree that people who do not believe in god do terrible things as well. That was why I pointed out that once people believe they are immune from prosecution of the state or their deity, they are free to divulge into their darkest side. That doesn’t mean they will, but they believe they are immune from punishment.

Female and Male genital mutilation of children is still commonly practiced and is almost exclusively religious based.

 

[Vonsalza]

Trust me, people don’t need god to be sh***y to each other.

When god was killed and replaced by the only thing that could still claim some sort of transcendence - The State - there commenced the greatest blood baths in human history.

State-Atheism nations racked up a higher body-count than all the religious wars in all history combined. My God, we’re STILL finding mass graves.

 

[Vonsalza]

If acting in your best interest harms others, there is a way for society, as well as individuals, to assert that your behavior is not as moral as behaviors which do not harm others. We have laws, customs, cultures which make those assertions.

The law portion of it is invariably and eternally under contest.

Actions that increase your individual well-being always have some cost to the groups you’re a member of.

Actions that increase your group’s well-being come at a cost to you personally.

The oscillation is endless.

 

[PickyPicky]

Why should I not always and in every situation do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest?

Because your moral sense says otherwise. You are giving yourself problems here. “Should” is a modal verb; the mode is of moral obligation; “should” by definition means according to morality. So you “should” do what your moral code tells you to do. Your question answers itself within the very meaning of the words you use.

 

[Ender]

So long as our best interest does not harm others, it is generally considered moral even if it is self-centered.

Again, here is the concept that I can’t harm others, but why should I accept that as a precondition? If morality is solely subjective then I have no moral obligations other than the ones I impose on myself. I don’t think you have any basis for insisting that my behavior must include not harming others. If I can steal and get away with it, why should I not do it?

So you “should” do what your moral code tells you to do.

I’m trying to decide what my moral code ought to be, and I’m having a hard time finding a reasonable objection to “Whatever is best for me.”

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m trying to decide what my moral code ought to be, and I’m having a hard time finding a reasonable objection to “Whatever is best for me.”

How do you judge what your moral code should be, except by your moral code? You are asking effectively why you should believe the morally right thing to do is that which is the morally right thing to do. You keep asking the question, but it has no meat to it,

What it “ought” to be — ought, like should, implies moral obligation — is what your moral code holds that it “ought” to be. That is … what it is.

 

[Ender]

How do you judge what your moral code should be, except by your moral code? You are asking effectively why you should believe the morally right thing to do is that which is the morally right thing to do. You keep asking the question, but it has no meat to it,

What it “ought” to be — ought, like should, implies moral obligation — is what your moral code holds that it “ought” to be. That is … what it is.

I am trying to logically construct a moral code to decide when certain behaviors are justified. While I can think of numerous actions that would be unwise, I can’t think of any that are immoral. The only common guide seems to be this: is it good for me, and can I get away with it?

 

[PickyPicky]

I am trying to logically construct a moral code to decide when certain behaviors are justified. While I can think of numerous actions that would be unwise, I can’t think of any that are immoral. The only common guide seems to be this: is it good for me, and can I get away with it?

I’m afraid what you are trying to do will fail. You can argue in a logical form that a certain action is moral or immoral, but only on the basis that it fits, or doesn’t fit, an existing moral code. And your moral code, while undoubtedly affected by influences such as religion or humanist philosophy or self-interest or prevailing opinion in your society, is fundamentally a reaction to the emotions aroused by the empathy (and other instinctive prompts) which has evolved in humans.

 

[meltzerboy2]

For some Jews and Muslims, whether you should have eggs and BACON for breakfast is very much a moral decision!