Morality without God?

[Khalid]

thomism.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/a-critique-of-a-secular-morality/
James Chastek:

Leah Libresco disputed whether Secular Humanism has any coherent set of core moral beliefs, and Darren responded by laying out what he thought they were. Though I liked some things in his account of morality (it was very analytic, clear, and orderly, for one) I ultimately disagree with it for three reasons:

1.) His first principle is incoherent and his morality does not follow from it.

2.) His morality is radically inadequate since, in principle,  it cannot provide answers to the sort of questions we most need a moral theory to answer, and as a subset of this:

3.) His is morality cannot show us the way to human excellence.

1.) Here’s Darren’s first principle:

As a fundamentalist Christian minister once said to me, “Secular Humanism is what you get when you take God off the throne, and put Man in his place.”

When thinking of what Secular Humanism stands for and how it is different than other ‘isms that one might encounter, this sounds like a pretty good place to start.

Darren, however, has a problem that the minister does not: for while we can dispute whether any God exists to sit on a throne, we know that no “Man” exists to sit on it. So, from Darren’s point of view, all his move can consist in is swapping out one non-existent ruler for another. After all, if we can put “Man” on a throne, why not put “Justice” or “Happiness” on the throne, since these would be far better and more direct ways to ensure Justice and human happiness? If the principal act of our morality is the exaltation of an abstract being which need not exist in itself, then there is no contradiction in even an atheist morality that states that the first moral act is to believe in God. But this suggests we’ve made a wrong turn somewhere.

This may seem unfair since Darren qualifies how he understands his first principle:

By putting Man on the throne in place of God, Secular Humanism simply claims that we humans are responsible for our own affairs. We get the credit for our triumphs; we get the blame for our failures. For good or ill, the reins are in our hands.

But this claim must be qualified: after all, humans were responsible for their affairs even on theism! Christians and Muslims, for example, were responsible for how they managed their affairs and knew that they would be ultimately judged as responsible for them. And so Darren’s claim must be far more radical and controversial, sc. human beings must freely create their own moral code and ground it only on their own say so. But it is precisely in light of this that the crisis of his first principle comes to the fore. As desirable as it might be to have “Man” create, promulgate, and enforce these new values, no such being exists or can exist. So how is moral action possible? Darren has two options: he can either take for granted some time when all human beings rationally believe in the same values, or he has to say that some person(s) by right must impose their values on others. What’s more, given his first principle, they must impose these values from the very throne on which God once sat. The first option is ridiculous, and the fact that Darren is only presenting these views in the context of a moral dispute is evidence that the first option is not a live possibility. This leaves Darren stuck with a divine ruler or rulers with absolute authority to impose their values on others, which stands in manifest contradiction to the morality he wants to advance. In Darren’s list of Secular values, for example, “Equality” is mentioned first, and his first virtue is “freedom”, that is, the ability of every person to determine his life so far as is possible.

2.) Any Christian reader is struck by the ways in which Darren’s list of moral commands is congruent with the Ten Commandments. Since by definition he have only pull from the last seven (and the last two are so similar) he basically borrows half of the second-tablet morality. We cannot murder (V) or steal (VII) or bear false witness (VII). This is admirable (especially his prohibition on lying, though he does not take it as absolute). That said, the commandments he leaves off speak volumes: he apparently does not believe that sexuality is a sphere of activity that falls under a basic moral principles, and he has nothing to say about coveting, that is, the morality of the heart and the interior man. One is left with the sense that this morality, such as it is, views anything having to do with sex as such as morally licit (if not commendable). If we condemn some act with a sexual aspect (child prostitution, say) we can only critique those aspects of it that are not sexual (say, the violation of consent). But why is this? One suspects that the idea behind this is that sexuality is so personal that it cannot fall under a moral law. We simply like what we like, and that is the end of it. This sort of belief also makes clear why this moral code has nothing to say about coveting. Coveting is done in the heart, and the heart wants what it wants. But the upshot of this is that his morality is entirely superficial and extrinsic. Someone who would look to for morality to inform him about what is most profoundly important and innermost to him finds that the Secular Humanist can only shrug and insist that he has nothing to say on the matter… (CONTINUED)

 

[Khalid]

James Chastek:

3.) This last problem points to a more basic one: there is nothing critical or challenging in Darren’s moral code. Reading it, a modern Western consumer is left thinking “Great! I guess I’m doing just fine!” There is nothing in this moral code like we find in, say, the Sermon on the Mount or the Four Moral Truths or Aristotle’s account of friendship in N. Eth. VIII (which very few people can read without feeling shame) even Epicurus’s tetrapharmakos. Darren’s moral code articulates a fundamental mediocrity of life. And so even though Darren quotes Gott ist tot in support of his morality, one suspects that Zarathustra himself would describe at greater length the sort of person described by this sort of secular morality:
Friedrich Nietzsche:

"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.

The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.

"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbles over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end for a pleasant death.

One still works, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.

"Formerly all the world was insane," -- say the subtlest of them, and they blink.

They are clever and know all that has happened: so there is no end to their derision. People still quarrel, but are soon reconciled -- otherwise it upsets their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

"We have discovered happiness," -- say the Last Men, and they blink.

 

[ColdComfort]

We can look at this logically: 1) Why have moral respect towards another human being if that being is just a swirl of atoms and molecules? If you appeal to social contract theory, or ‘game theory’ if that is the same thing, than you don’t have a basis for morality. It is all based on self-interest.It must be maintained by a merely human authority and as self-interest will always be looking to get the benefits of the contract without the obligations than such a society will have a tendency either to more authoritarianism or anarchy.

1. If an another human being is equal to you because, like you, he/she has been created out of nothing by God than morality has a firm, rational and unimpeachable source. If a perfect society is one where everyone acted like Christians in every instant than you wouldn’t need human authority. It would be self-regulating at least in it’s moral aspects.

We can look at it historically: 1) We now live in sort of an afterglow of Christian morality which is fading as we speak. Try to get a pro-abortionist to say he/she has no respect for human life. But they won’t give you any rational reasons for saying that an unborn child is not human either. In this case their rights go very much farther than the other person’s nose. So too with end of life issues. Practically speaking we have eugenics in our society in a more systematic way than the Nazi’s.I bring these issues up not to debate abortion but simply to point out that if the right to life cannot be respected in our culture than what right or moral code can be sustained. I have no stats to prove this but my personal experience is that in my lifetime of 56 years lying has become almost acceptable in some people’s eyes.

1. The fact that Christians have not and never will act as Christians is something one would expect from Catholic dogma. That being said Catholics have a morality that is weaved into nature. It is a fact inseparable from the fact that we exist and the manner in which God created us. A society where everyone acted as Christians would be a highly moral one; a society where everyone acted as an atheist would be one that depended on despotism to keep self-interested individuals from descending into barbarism.

 

[Michael12]

Let’s remember that Christ didn’t just say do unto your friends as you would have them do unto you, but went much further, saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” There’s a big difference, don’t you think?

 

[Fomalhaut]

Tyrion

**Not to mention that the concept expressed by the golden rule(s) is MUCH more ancient than christianity. **

Christ taught it, and it became universally recognized because he demonstrated it by his life and death. To this day it is principally associated with him and no one else.

I’m sorry, but you do live in a bubble. The entire planet is not christian. Have a look to buddhist morals

 

[PJM]

=Charlemagne II;10289538]How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?

Jeremiah) 31:33 “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…”

Hebrews 10:16 “And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them”

This is the answer.

But it’s deeper than this; it has to do with the Uiverse existing to that mann might and man can:

Know that a superior force exist [thus all the pagan gods]

Then with God Grace; actually come to Know God:shrug:

Quite a mystery isn’t it.

 

[mymamamary]

I’m sorry, but you do live in a bubble. The entire planet is not christian. Have a look to buddhist morals

That my friend is an extension of something that Catholics call the “Natural Moral Law”. This law is written by GOD on the heart of man. Hence the reason that the “Golden Rule” appears in every religion and has always been an unspoken rule. Take killing for example. Killing has always been seen as wrong in every time, culture and place when done for no good reason. However, “Turn the other cheek” is not part of the Golden Rule. It goes above and beyond the call of duty. Moral perfection.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Formalhaut

I’m sorry, but you do live in a bubble. The entire planet is not christian. Have a look to buddhist morals.

Buddhists also live in bubbles!

Jesus did not derive his teaching from Buddha. But Jesus, being the Son of God, perfected the saying and demonstrated it by his life and death. I have never seen the statement phrased in any other religion quite the way it is phrased by Jesus.

Buddhism is largely atheistic, and therefore while it is a philosophy does not deserve to be called a religion except among the Buddhists who acknowledge God(s).

 

[Portofino]

Tyrion

** A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed! **

But without God, there would be no reason for everybody to be reasonable. The man who says “The right of my fist is unlimited” cannot be challenged as immoral if his the power of his fist is unlimited. In that case, what good is an appeal to reason? Think Hitler and Mao, both creators of dominantly atheist regimes.

A good measure of what we call morality is based on human psychology. One of its aspects – as the philosopher Nietzsche has pointed out – is the experience of resentment. The man who says, “the right of my fist is unlimited” – whether as bluntly as that, or implicit in his power over you – is going to be resented for that fact.

What has ironically happened, historically, is that the man who says, “the right of my fist is unlimited” cannot appeal only to his own power in order to keep you under his thumb. This is because, as a mere mortal man, the right of his fist is never unlimited (not as long as he can bleed; be hurt; be killed). Historically, most regimes have appealed to someone even more powerful than mere human beings – namely, to a God or a higher power (the divine right of kings, for example). He had to convince you that he is no mere man, and that you should not even try to overpower him. He had to convince you that there was an invisible “force field” around him, as it were. That he was under divine protection, and that something awful was going to happen to you – an Egyptian curse, of sorts – if you laid a hand on him.

During the Enlightenment, you had large numbers of people questioning the divine right of kings. They no longer believed in it. And they figured out something which common sense could have told them all along – that they are many, their rulers are few.

Witness the French Revolution and the beheading of King Louis XVI. Or, in more recent times, witness all of Europe – and, ultimately, the western world – uniting to defeat Hitler. It is basic human psychology – the principle of “don’t tread on me.”

Before the French Revolution, you had the beginnings of a Parliamentary system, because those “second in command” (the nobility) dared to push back at the king, at the first in command. The king was forced to share power. With the French Revolution, the rulers were forced not merely to share power with the nobility, but with the people (or, at least, the “middle class”). The American Revolution, obviously, consolidates this notion of rule by the people, who demand equal treatment and who will agitate in response to – because they resent – anything less.

This is the ultimate basis for the social contract and for working towards what we call a more “just and equitable” society. Without it, there is revolution and social unrest, because people demand what they consider to be fair treatment. If you have a society full of such people – and willing to fight for fair treatment – then you ultimately have a society where the civil order is maintained as a kind of truce, a form of compromise between competing interests.

Sure, tyrants are still in power – as absolute monarchs were in power in Europe, for many centuries – but, in the long haul, such leaders are ultimately dethroned, once the great mass of people know and believe that “he is a man, just as we are – no better than we”; and that much of the power he holds over us is psychological.

 

[mymamamary]

A good measure of what we call morality is based on human psychology. One of its aspects – as the philosopher Nietzsche has pointed out – is the experience of resentment. The man who says, “the right of my fist is unlimited” – whether as bluntly as that, or implicit in his power over you – is going to be resented for that fact.

What has ironically happened, historically, is that the man who says, “the right of my fist is unlimited” cannot appeal only to his own power in order to keep you under his thumb. This is because, as a mere mortal man, the right of his fist is never unlimited (not as long as he can bleed; be hurt; be killed). Historically, most regimes have appealed to someone even more powerful than mere human beings – namely, to a God or a higher power (the divine right of kings, for example). He had to convince you that he is no mere man, and that you should not even try to overpower him. He had to convince you that there was an invisible “force field” around him, as it were. That he was under divine protection, and that something awful was going to happen to you – an Egyptian curse, of sorts – if you laid a hand on him.

During the Enlightenment, you had large numbers of people questioning the divine right of kings. They no longer believed in it. And they figured out something which common sense could have told them all along – that they are many, their rulers are few.

Witness the French Revolution and the beheading of King Louis XVI. Or, in more recent times, witness all of Europe – and, ultimately, the western world – uniting to defeat Hitler. It is basic human psychology – the principle of “don’t tread on me.”

Before the French Revolution, you had the beginnings of a Parliamentary system, because those “second in command” (the nobility) dared to push back at the king, at the first in command. The king was forced to share power. With the French Revolution, the rulers were forced not merely to share power with the nobility, but with the people (or, at least, the “middle class”). The American Revolution, obviously, consolidates this notion of rule by the people, who demand equal treatment and who will agitate in response to – because they resent – anything less.

This is the ultimate basis for the social contract and for working towards what we call a more “just and equitable” society. Without it, there is revolution and social unrest, because people demand what they consider to be fair treatment. If you have a society full of such people – and willing to fight for fair treatment – then you ultimately have a society where the civil order is maintained as a kind of truce, a form of compromise between competing interests.

Sure, tyrants are still in power – as absolute monarchs were in power in Europe, for many centuries – but, in the long haul, such leaders are ultimately dethroned, once the great mass of people know and believe that “he is a man, just as we are – no better than we”; and that much of the power he holds over us is psychological.

Of course morality has a HUGE influence on physcology. Scientists have discovered that what we Catholics call Conscience is located in the brain via scientific studies. So that little voice inside Your head, really is a little voice inside your head. However, there has to be something deeper than mere physcology when it comes to morality. I am stumped as to how sheer intellect could ever discover these vast moral truths. Who could we have drawn them from? We couldn’t draw them from ourselves, for if we did, They hold no objective value, which makes them really dangerous. In short, what Catholics have been saying for 2,000 years is just being discovered by science. We beat them there.

 

[Ion]

“The revolution kill its own children” this saying was always true when the revolutionaries were atheists. That is the morality without God.

 

[mymamamary]

“The revolution kill its own children”

this saying was always true when the revolutionaries were atheists. That is the morality without God.

They did in the French Revolution. Everyone went paranoid and the streets of Paris flowed with blood.

 

[Ion]

Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives”, Stalin’s Gulag …
The communist countries used to put a leader in charge for the rest of his life, to avoid the fight for power…

 

[Fomalhaut]

You know what ? I think it is far too easy to blame atheism for the french Terreur (this instability period during the revolution) because human beings easily slaughter each other, God or not. I think a lot of massacres in History happened under a religious government. But this is all personal feeling. I’m a scientist, not an historian, so I don’t have the solid base of knowledge I would need to throw myself into this kind of debate. I just wanted to emphasize that finger pointing using historical event is a dangerous business, and should only be done using heaps of serious sources from both sides of the argument.

Oh, and about the perpetual claim Hitler was an atheist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Statements_against_atheism

 

[tata888]

Can an individual be moral without God? Yes, they can. Saint Paul said that God puts the laws into every man’s heart. However whenever one think of morality one cannot help but to think of it on an absolute scale. What is it that makes murder or rape immoral? After all many actions which we deem immoral can actually progress societies, such as human experimentations or stem cell researches. Things such as selective breeding for example could improve our human race, and yet they are deemed immoral by us. Why? Afterall without God, who is the government to declare what is right or wrong? Since it is impossible for the government to represent EVERY citizen, can each citizen act in his/her own accord? We know this is impossible, societies would collapse as a result. Without a firm absolute, any concept of morality or ethics cannot exist. At most they may exist as means to foster a stable society, but morality as a concept cannot exist without invoking God or something sort of absolute.

 

[Ion]

You know what ? I think it is far too easy to blame atheism for the french Terreur (this instability period during the revolution) because human beings easily slaughter each other, God or not. I think a lot of massacres in History happened under a religious government. But this is all personal feeling. I’m a scientist, not an historian, so I don’t have the solid base of knowledge I would need to throw myself into this kind of debate. I just wanted to emphasize that finger pointing using historical event is a dangerous business, and should only be done using heaps of serious sources from both sides of the argument.

Oh, and about the perpetual claim Hitler was an atheist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Statements_against_atheism

Hitler was not only a murderer but also a successful liar.
The American revolution didn’t kill it’s children…

 

[Fomalhaut]

Hitler was not only a murderer but also a successful liar.
The American revolution didn’t kill it’s children…

Because it was a revolution against an external oppressor. The french revolution was internal, thus very painful. The american civil war did kill a lot of american children.

 

[Ion]

Because it was a revolution against an external oppressor. The french revolution was internal, thus very painful. The american civil war did kill a lot of american children.

“The revolution kill it own children” that means for the sake of the revolution ,revolutionaries killed people that fought for the revolution, “own children”.
Hitler killed the entire opposition whitin the nazi party. Stalin also,( see Trotsky etc)
This is how the atheist morality works…can’t help it. Too many examples not to wonder: atheists can’t make a “good” revolution

 

[mymamamary]

You know what ? I think it is far too easy to blame atheism for the french Terreur (this instability period during the revolution) because human beings easily slaughter each other, God or not. I think a lot of massacres in History happened under a religious government. But this is all personal feeling. I’m a scientist, not an historian, so I don’t have the solid base of knowledge I would need to throw myself into this kind of debate. I just wanted to emphasize that finger pointing using historical event is a dangerous business, and should only be done using heaps of serious sources from both sides of the argument.

Oh, and about the perpetual claim Hitler was an atheist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Statements_against_atheism

Well they certainly weren’t killing each other prior to the Revolution. Everything after the revolution became dog eat dog. It was this kind of atheistic and agnostic mindset that was responsible for the revolution. I am not finger pointing, only stating it was it was. Sure we have had our moral slip-ups, but not anywhere close to the moral slip ups the rest of the world had, outside of Christian thinking. Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung as examples. It is easy to blame atheism for the reign of terror because it was atheism that was responsible for the reign of terror. Conventional Catholic morals (Such as thou shalt not kill) went out the window and a lot of heads went down the guillotine trap door. . In the revolutionaries minds there was no GOD, so there was no need to qualm about eliminating anyone or everyone that even smelt funny.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

Even when referring to the commandments of Yahweh there can be disagreements on morality among people within a society.