Morality without God?

[Peter_Plato]

Response to post 415
Exactly!!! That is why reward and punishment (Skinner) has nothing to do with love, God or morality!
Fundamentalists that are obsessed with law, will never understand the (substance) behind the law (spirit).
Unfortunately,. Constantine and his imperial ambitions (that are long gone) still contaminate spirituality and scriptural truth.

This is a leap since it assumes all potentially moral beings are indeed motivated by a loving spirit and that, therefore, recourse to reward and punishment will never be required to form irrationally and selfishly motivated creatures into properly moral beings.

Love may be the better way, but that doesn’t mean it is the only way. If it were, we could tear down all prisons and let all offenders free to be moved by their essentially loving spirits.

Granted, a loving culture might produce fewer individuals with a penchant for crime, but to presume all will be motivated by a good will might be a stretch.

 

[Linux]

No, I am saying things are wrong because they are contrary to the absolute Being and Goodness of God which is not capricious or arbitrary but imbues reality with the qualities of meaning, goodness and love which could not possibly come from an impersonal, or merely objective reality, since, in that case, there would then be no “Person” to endow anything that could even vaguely constitute value, goodness or any other transcendent qualities onto reality.

You are confusing everything I have said and then presented it as if I am arguing that morality requires an impersonal cause. No. It requires an objective universal standard of moral truth.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s be clear, a theistic view of the universe provides, in principle, a moral foundation built into the intentional purpose behind the existence of all that is. An atheistic view must concede this and argue that there is no such moral foundation and must rely on a purely subjective, at the human level, ground for ethics.

I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to take a few paragraphs to get to this point. Isn’t it ‘stating the bleedin’ obvious’?

What it comes down to, then, is if the monotheistic God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism does exist, there is no question that his moral authority supercedes that of any created thing existing within what is essentially his “world.” His game, his rules

It may be worth pointing out that you, and other Christians, feel you have a moral framework because of your belief in God. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. You presumably live your life based on the fact that He does. If, hypothetically, it was discovered that God didn’t exist but no-one told you, you would still feel that your morality was based on His authority. Nothing would change.

Similarly, a Hindu or an Aborigine has a basis for their morality as well.

Even given discordant ethical positions, the question then to be asked is, “Which is the correct view?” Surely that is to be preferred over the optional, “Therefore, no correct view is possible.”

I’m not sure that anyone has suggested that there are no correct views. In fact, I think there have been a few posts indicating that atheists and people of completely different religions can all agree on many points. And that people within the same religion can disagree completely.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 420
I only care about the spirit behind an action. For example,suppose I hypnotized “Bob” and convinced him that the gun I give him is a squirt gun. I tell him that it would be funny if he squirted “Jim” with water. He does! And kills him! Is Bob guilty of murder? NOPE! I am.

 

[Linux]

I never made any such assumption, but am going by what you posted. Why can’t Truth be ultimately Subjective without entailing caprice or willfulness on its part?

If I create the universe and say that 2+2 = 10 simply because I want it to be 10, this would not entail metaphysical truth, but rather it would entail a subjective desire for it to be true. If God says that it is wrong to put a baby in a frying pan in preparation for lunch merely because he desires it to be wrong, then that has nothing to do with moral truth and everything to do with Gods subjective desire. On the one hand you correctly say that moral truth is a reflection of Gods objective nature which is goodness but on the other hand you contradict this by appearing to envision a God that invents metaphysical moral truth at his whim or desire.

I reject that conception of God. Might does not make right. The nature of love is that which determines if an action is selfish because love by its nature is the antithesis of selfishness. God is literally the antithesis of selfishness as much as he is the antithesis of absolute nothingness; not by choice but rather by nature. God is the embodiment of love. God is Love itself and since God is the being in which we move and have our being we are therefore subject to that objective universal standard of moral truth.

 

[wittgenstein]

Interesting! Google,"paraconsistent logic stanford encyclopedia of philosophy "

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Interesting! Google,"paraconsistent logic stanford encyclopedia of philosophy "

Are you referring to this?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**It may be worth pointing out that you, and other Christians, feel you have a moral framework because of your belief in God. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. You presumably live your life based on the fact that He does. If, hypothetically, it was discovered that God didn’t exist but no-one told you, you would still feel that your morality was based on His authority. Nothing would change. **

Hypothetically it would not be possible to discover that God does not exist but nobody told me.

Do you ever proofread your posts to see if you have said something really weird? Might be a good time to start.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I create the universe and say that 2+2 = 10 simply because I want it to be 10, this would not entail metaphysical truth, but rather it would entail a subjective desire for it to be true. If God says that it is wrong to put a baby in a frying pan in preparation for lunch merely because he desires it to be wrong, then that has nothing to do with moral truth and everything to do with Gods subjective desire. On the one hand you correctly say that moral truth is a reflection of Gods objective nature which is goodness but on the other hand you contradict this by appearing to envision a God that invents metaphysical moral truth at his whim or desire.

I reject that conception of God. Might does not make right. The nature of love is that which determines if an action is selfish because love by its nature is the antithesis of selfishness. God is literally the antithesis of selfishness as much as he is the antithesis of absolute nothingness; not by choice but rather by nature. God is the embodiment of love. God is Love itself and since God is the being in which we move and have our being we are therefore subject to that objective universal standard of moral truth.

Think about this counter example.

The cosmological constants that order the universe are objectively determinable and came into existence simultaneously with space-time-matter-energy. These ordering constants determine the manner in which the universe has and continues to unfold. If, as the cosmological argument and the anthropic principle seem to indicate, the probability that constants could have arisen by mere circumstance being so remote then the ordering would have had to have been put into place by intelligent and subjective purpose. The “truth” of the cosmological constants would not have been discernible except for the reason that these constants were put into effect in order to allow intelligent agents to arise and understand them.

Ethical principles could have precisely the same character, except the dependency of these principles would not be on matter-time-space and energy, but on the subsequent existence of moral agents. Just as cosmological constants would have no correlation to intelligent ordering except as discernible by intelligent agents that result from the ordering and tuning of the constants, moral principles would have no meaning absent the arrival of moral agents who originate from a moral purpose to the universe. As the initial intelligent intention and purpose behind the cosmological constants could very well be why intelligent human beings exist today, the “good” intention of the Creator explains why moral agents likewise exist today. Absent the intentional good will of the Creator moral good would have no meaning.

It is not a question of might makes right, but more of the intrinsic goodness of Being itself that engenders moral rightness. It is being and the capacity or power to be, i.e., to exist, not some misconceived notion of might, that makes right. To be is to be good and right. To not be or be deprived of being is evil. So goodness derives directly as a quality of Being and the supreme and unmitigated capacity to be.

It is not possible to properly conceive of God and the “will” of God as evil without severely compromising who and what God is.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

There’s little to suggest Hitler was an atheist. I also fail to see why the French Revolution is being mentioned. The fact that immoral non-believers may exist does not mean that non-believers cannot develop a moral compass. At any rate, there are good reasons to oppose/outlaw murder and killing regardless of whether it’s moral or immoral to do so.

 

[tonyrey]

Think about this counter example.

The cosmological constants that order the universe are objectively determinable and came into existence simultaneously with space-time-matter-energy. These ordering constants determine the manner in which the universe has and continues to unfold. If, as the cosmological argument and the anthropic principle seem to indicate, the probability that constants could have arisen by mere circumstance being so remote then the ordering would have had to have been put into place by intelligent and subjective purpose. The “truth” of the cosmological constants would not have been discernible except for the reason that these constants were put into effect in order to allow intelligent agents to arise and understand them.

Ethical principles could have precisely the same character, except the dependency of these principles would not be on matter-time-space and energy, but on the subsequent existence of moral agents. Just as cosmological constants would have no correlation to intelligent ordering except as discernible by intelligent agents that result from the ordering and tuning of the constants, moral principles would have no meaning absent the arrival of moral agents who originate from a moral purpose to the universe. As the initial intelligent intention and purpose behind the cosmological constants could very well be why intelligent human beings exist today, the “good” intention of the Creator explains why moral agents likewise exist today. Absent the intentional good will of the Creator moral good would have no meaning.

It is not a question of might makes right, but more of the intrinsic goodness of Being itself that engenders moral rightness. It is being and the capacity or power to be, i.e., to exist, not some misconceived notion of might, that makes right. To be is to be good and right. To not be or be deprived of being is evil. So goodness derives directly as a quality of Being and the supreme and unmitigated capacity to be.

It is not possible to properly conceive of God and the “will” of God as evil without severely compromising who and what God is.

A superb - and irrefutable - explanation!

 

[InJesusItrust]

Morality is dependent on purpose. We cannot say that one ought to do something unless we know the purpose of life. Good actions are those who further life’s purpose and bad actions are those who hinder life’s purpose. Now without God or the transcendent, I think there can be no purpose to life. To say that everyone can choose a purpose is tantamount to saying that there is no purpose.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Regular Atheist

There’s little to suggest Hitler was an atheist.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

The fact that immoral non-believers may exist does not mean that non-believers cannot develop a moral compass.

They are more likely to be able to do so in a Christian society, where they might imbibe morals by osmosis. They are also more likely to be moral if they have given up the religion they once possessed, simply because the afterglow of Christ will remain with them even when they have repudiated Christ. However, that glow can diminish, as it did with Stalin and Hitler after they repudiated Christ.

 

[Eleve]

As the initial intelligent intention and purpose behind the cosmological constants could very well be why intelligent human beings exist today, the “good” intention of the Creator explains why moral agents likewise exist today. Absent the intentional good will of the Creator moral good would have no meaning.

OK, but again that’s just the cosmological argument in different garb. You think God is necessary for morality just because he’s necessary for anything at all. But if the cosmological argument fails, and it’s possible for the universe in general to exist without God, this line of reasoning doesn’t show why there could not still be moral facts.

 

[tonyrey]

OK, but again that’s just the cosmological argument in different garb. You think God is necessary for morality just because he’s necessary for anything at all. But if the cosmological argument fails, and it’s possible for the universe in general to exist without God, this line of reasoning doesn’t show why there could not still be moral facts.

On what do you base moral facts in an amoral universe?

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK, but again that’s just the cosmological argument in different garb. You think God is necessary for morality just because he’s necessary for anything at all. But if the cosmological argument fails, and it’s possible for the universe in general to exist without God, this line of reasoning doesn’t show why there could not still be moral facts.

The critical element to make ethical or moral “facts” binding on all moral beings must be that any type of qualitative “filter” on reality have some kind of “authority” by which qualities such as goodness and truth preside over or take precedence over the mere fact of existence. If the basic ground of existence is purely lifeless, objective, brute “fact,” then qualitative filters superimposed on reality must be relative to subjects that do the imposing. If that is the case, then qualitative elements such as goodness, beauty, utility, etc. can only be relative to the subjective beings that apply those filters. The obligatory nature of ethical principles would be illusory and the authority for imposition of standards reduced to a pragmatism or prudential and conditional terms. The only way that moral principles can be “factual” in any sense is for “lifeless” reality to be subordinate to some form of absolute Subjectivity that grounds reality itself.

 

[Eleve]

If the basic ground of existence is purely lifeless, objective, brute “fact,” then qualitative filters superimposed on reality must be relative to subjects that do the imposing.

OK, but I didn’t claim that “the basic ground of existence is purely lifeless, objective, brute ‘fact.’” Nor do I see, despite your relentless insistence to the contrary, how this would be entailed by God’s nonexistence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Eleve

But if the cosmological argument fails, and it’s possible for the universe in general to exist without God, this line of reasoning doesn’t show why there could not still be moral facts.

The cosmological argument may fail to convince, especially with those predisposed not to believe it, but the argument itself does not fail. The Big Bang has made it all the more likely that the cosmological argument is conceivably true.

The belief (and it is a belief because it is not proven) that God does not exist in no way requires that we not believe in objective morality. Ayn Rand, an objectivist atheist, believed in objective morality. Unfortunately, her argument did not stand up to scrutiny, for the simple reason that she relied on Reason to establish objective moral principles. It’s a well known fact that one person’s reason is another person’s irrationality.

So the only real source of objective or absolute morality is the Lawgiver called God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK, but I didn’t claim that “the basic ground of existence is purely lifeless, objective, brute ‘fact.’” Nor do I see, despite your relentless insistence to the contrary, how this would be entailed by God’s nonexistence.

If God (as defined by classic theism) does not exist, where do qualities such as beauty, goodness or even truth come from? These qualitative aspects are dependent upon some subjective “being” or other to impose them, no? It would seem that the onus is on those, perhaps you, who hold that truly objective grounds for morality can exist without God.

It would seem that such qualitative aspects as beauty or goodness can only be an actual aspect of reality if reality itself derives from an absolute Subject superior to reality that instills those qualities into it. Qualitative aspects would, only then, precede the objective brute facts because the Subjective bringer of these qualities has precedence over lifeless reality.

If, at ground, lifeless, objective, brute fact is the “reality” layer underlying all, then qualitative elements can only be filters by which conditionally existing subjective beings interpret reality for the sake of making their own sense of the underlying reality which, in fact, has none of these qualities.

If, however, the “reality” layer underlying all is a Supreme and Personal Being then qualitive elements are not merely filters which interpret objective reality but are integral to reality itself.

Without God, the underlying reality itself can only be lifeless, brute fact; and morals only conditional on the transitory existence of moral subjects with no absolutely obligatory aspect, except as forcibly or conditionally imposed by some yielding power over others.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If God (as defined by classic theism) does not exist, where do qualities such as beauty, goodness or even truth come from? These qualitative aspects are dependent upon some subjective “being” or other to impose them, no? It would seem that the onus is on those, perhaps you, who hold that truly objective grounds for morality can exist without God.

It would seem that such qualitative aspects as beauty or goodness can only be an actual aspect of reality if reality itself derives from an absolute Subject superior to reality that instills those qualities into it. Qualitative aspects would, only then, precede the objective brute facts because the Subjective bringer of these qualities has precedence over lifeless reality.

I would say that you are correct in what you say, generally. Truth, goodness, beauty, morality require a " ground " in the existence of God who is the real existing, living being in whom truth, goodness, beauty are identified with his existence and who therefore is the cause of truth, goodness, beauty in the natures he brought into existence. I would say that these are not, however, " qualities, " as you suggest but realities existing in the natures which have been created. Morality is a special reality since it has to do only with the intelligent beings which have been created. Beings which are indeed living " subjects.".

God, the author of all created being directs all beings to their proper ends as envisioned by the Divine Intellect. Non intelligent, non living beings are directed by the law of their nature created with the creation of their natures.

Leaving aside the angelic nature as a special subject, I will address living human nature, Man. God directs man by a law created along with his created nature. But that law is written into a soul having an intellect and free will which is designed to lead the human person to his proper end through the proper application of the intellect and free will to the realities the person’s existence. In other words, the person’s intellect and free will are designed to perceive the true, the good, and the beautiful and to act in a way which will lead him to his proper end. So the law of morality is the proper application of the intellect and free will so as to direct the person to his proper end.

Man is able to discern the proper behaviors which will lead him to his proper end because his nature is of such a form that it can recognize what is proper and what is not. This does require the proper exercise of the intellect and will however. But the intellect was designed to recognize this. This leaves aside the necessity of a Divine Revelation.

So without God and without a living, intelligent subject, there would be no possibility of an objective morality. If God did not exist, there would be no morally good or bad behavior. Behavior would subject to the dictates of some tyrannical power. Linus