Morality without God?

[meltzerboy]

I hope you’re not suggesting that He was the first to suggest it. Maybe he’d read Confucius:

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.”

Or Pitacus:

“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.”

Or the Mahabharata :

“Hence, by self-control and by making dharma your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

So effectively, following this very sensible directive, one could develop a ‘Christian’ sense of morality well before Christians existed. Maybe there’s a forum discussion going on in India or China that’s asking: Morality without the Mahabharata? or: Morality without Confucius?

These ideas are indeed Christian, but why try to claim them as purely Christian?

Edit: Apologies, this was in reference to the Golden Rule, not Kant.

Don’t forget that the golden rule was also part of Judaism before Jesus during the era of Hillel the Elder.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

These ideas are indeed Christian, but why try to claim them as purely Christian?

They are purely Christian, and are the centerpiece of Christianity. They are not exclusively Christian because God saw fit to plant them in the hearts of men throughout the world. Not all men have accepted them. Christianity not only accepts them, but emphasizes them as central to the teachings of Christ.

From Christ they have spread throughout the world in a way that Judaism could never have achieved because Judaism saw itself as exclusive and without a mission to convert all nations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I hope you’re not suggesting that He was the first to suggest it. Maybe he’d read Confucius:

Well, if true that “…before Abraham ever was, I am…” then Confucius may have been the first within space-time to have said it, but not the first simpliciter. A reason to question whether Confucius was indeed the first in time has also been raised.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leviticus 19:18 was likely written before Confucius lived. It contains the seeds of the Golden Rule.

“You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

The phrasing of Jesus:

“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

It is not likely that Confucius lived before the book of Leviticus was written. Moreover, the Analects of Confucius were collected/written by his followers several centuries after Confucius lived.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t forget that the golden rule was also part of Judaism before Jesus during the era of Hillel the Elder.

Who lived well after those quoted so maybe he read Confucious as well.

The point being made, which is so obvious that I don’t know why it has to be stated, is that variations of the Golden Rule have been around ever since civilisation began. It’s one of the criteria for actually becoming civilised and pre-dates Christianity by umpteen millennium.

If you want to say that God instils in it everyone heart, then be my guest. But if you want to say that it actually starts with Christianity (that is, when Christ was around), then you are spectacularly wrong. If you want to say that Christ was the first to preach it, then you are equally wrong.

People have been putting this ‘Golden Rule’ forward as a guide to how we should live ever since (and perhaps before) we lived in caves and had to beat our food to death with a rock.

 

[mymamamary]

Who lived well after those quoted so maybe he read Confucious as well.

The point being made, which is so obvious that I don’t know why it has to be stated, is that variations of the Golden Rule have been around ever since civilisation began. It’s one of the criteria for actually becoming civilised and pre-dates Christianity by umpteen millennium.

If you want to say that God instils in it everyone heart, then be my guest. But if you want to say that it actually starts with Christianity (that is, when Christ was around), then you are spectacularly wrong. If you want to say that Christ was the first to preach it, then you are equally wrong.

People have been putting this ‘Golden Rule’ forward as a guide to how we should live ever since (and perhaps before) we lived in caves and had to beat our food to death with a rock.

Yes however CHRIST was the only ONE who distinctly said that we must turn the other cheek…

 

[PRmerger]

Who lived well after those quoted so maybe he read Confucious as well.

The point being made, which is so obvious that I don’t know why it has to be stated, is that variations of the Golden Rule have been around ever since civilisation began. It’s one of the criteria for actually becoming civilised and pre-dates Christianity by umpteen millennium.

If you want to say that God instils in it everyone heart, then be my guest. But if you want to say that it actually starts with Christianity (that is, when Christ was around), then you are spectacularly wrong. If you want to say that Christ was the first to preach it, then you are equally wrong.

People have been putting this ‘Golden Rule’ forward as a guide to how we should live ever since (and perhaps before) we lived in caves and had to beat our food to death with a rock.

Yes, I think it is a mistake for Christians to assert that the good news Jesus proclaimed was that of the moral law. Every morally sane person in Christ’s era already knew that it was the right thing to treat others as they wanted to be treated.

Jesus did not come to be a great philosopher.

He came to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

 

[Bradski]

Yes however CHRIST was the only ONE who distinctly said that we must turn the other cheek…

And non-violence is to be commended. You might check up what the Hindus, Jainists and Buddhists think about it as well. Again, all predating Christianity.

 

[mymamamary]

And non-violence is to be commended. You might check up what the Hindus, Jainists and Buddhists think about it as well. Again, all predating Christianity.

Sure these have made mention. However none of them made this a distinct statement and then proceed to back it up with words Like Our LORD, then to lay the basis for the rest of those who would be martyred after HIM.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

If you want to say that God instils in it everyone heart, then be my guest. But if you want to say that it actually starts with Christianity (that is, when Christ was around), then you are spectacularly wrong. If you want to say that Christ was the first to preach it, then you are equally wrong.

So far as I know, no one said that Christ was the first to say the golden rule.

I do believe that throughout Western Civilization it is mainly through Christ’s influence that the saying is commonly known.

 

[Bradski]

So far as I know, no one said that Christ was the first to say the golden rule.
I do believe that throughout Western Civilization it is mainly through Christ’s influence that the saying is commonly known.

I think that’s quite reasonable, yes. But I think that it’s accepted that the moral teachings of Jesus were not some sudden insight into the human condition that he brought to the masses. As has been seen, and agreed to by most, the concept of do unto others and non-violence had been around for millennia in different cultures before Jesus took the opportunity to re-emphasise them to his followers. Just as, for example, Gandhi did with his.

So those who follow Jainism or Buddhism or Hinduism have the same rules for moral behaviour as those who follow Christianity. And it’s obvious that a Hindu, for example, would be puzzled by any insistence that his moral behaviour is somehow ordained by someone else’s god.

Let’s not forget that we aren’t discussing ‘Can atheists be moral without God’, but can morality itself exist without the Christian God. So it’s not just a few of us unbelievers who find it an odd question, but millions of people who follow a different belief system would as well.

 

[wittgenstein]

First read post 294
If we do not agree with a definition of what the catagorical imperative is, can anything we say be rational? Please agree or disagree with Kant’s definition, and then perhaps then we can move beyond this nonsense!

 

[mymamamary]

I think that’s quite reasonable, yes. But I think that it’s accepted that the moral teachings of Jesus were not some sudden insight into the human condition that he brought to the masses. As has been seen, and agreed to by most, the concept of do unto others and non-violence had been around for millennia in different cultures before Jesus took the opportunity to re-emphasise them to his followers. Just as, for example, Gandhi did with his.

So those who follow Jainism or Buddhism or Hinduism have the same rules for moral behaviour as those who follow Christianity. And it’s obvious that a Hindu, for example, would be puzzled by any insistence that his moral behaviour is somehow ordained by someone else’s god.

Let’s not forget that we aren’t discussing ‘Can atheists be moral without God’, but can morality itself exist without the Christian God. So it’s not just a few of us unbelievers who find it an odd question, but millions of people who follow a different belief system would as well.

In this case no. GOD BEING the source of all good, truth and justice had to instill this morality in us. If a Hindu doesn’t wanna believe this, then too bad so sad. Then its no longer a case of innocent ignorance but disregard. Christianity wasn’t some “All religions are equal religion”, thats blasphemy. We have the Truth hence the reason we need to evangelise. Morality came from religion. Man always had a religion. Whether it was in the tree and stone, or now, although the gods of stone and tree weren’t actual gods, the ONE, TRUE GOD instilled the moral law into our hearts, again, the reason why we aspire to perfection, or to someone who is perfect, the ONLY someone who is perfect, GOD.

 

[Eleve]

witt, I’m quite familiar with how Kant analyzes the categorical imperative, as a number of my college courses have dealt with those sections of the Groundwork in depth. If we’re going to agree, it will be because you come to accept the same basic understanding of Kant that every other philosopher accepts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

I think that’s quite reasonable, yes. But I think that it’s accepted that the moral teachings of Jesus were not some sudden insight into the human condition that he brought to the masses. As has been seen, and agreed to by most, the concept of do unto others and non-violence had been around for millennia in different cultures before Jesus took the opportunity to re-emphasise them to his followers. Just as, for example, Gandhi did with his.

Your point will not get much traction in this forum. Since you don’t believe Jesus was divine, you can’t believe that the golden rule, no matter what culture it is found in, comes from the Christian God. That Christ announces it sometime after Leviticus or after Confucius means only that he did not appear on earth until after both Leviticus and Confucius. It does not follow that the moral truth he preached was not something he established through different ways and in different cultures from the Creation on.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 313
Actually, every philosopher agrees with Kant’s definition of "catagorical imperative " considering that Kant defined the terms!
For Kant’s definition see post 294.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For Kant’s definition see post 294.

For the sake of not having to scroll back here it is:

…]" Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Immanuel Kant
Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals.
That is the categorical imperative!

 

[Eleve]

witt, I agree with Kant’s definition, but I don’t agree with your interpretation of that definition. Clear?

 

[Bradski]

That Christ announces it sometime after Leviticus or after Confucius means only that he did not appear on earth until after both Leviticus and Confucius. It does not follow that the moral truth he preached was not something he established through different ways and in different cultures from the Creation on.

And I’m afraid that this is where these conversations always end up. It always runs thus:

1. A Christian says that morality in the form of the Golden Rule and love your neighbour etc are specifically based on Christian teachings.
2. Someone else points out that these were taught long before Jesus and gives numerous examples.
3. The reply is that it doesn’t matter. Jesus (or God) established this morality within said cultures long before Christianity came upon the scene.

So it appears that Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Hinduism etc etc are all based on Christian morals anyway. As are the morals of any unbeliever. In fact, everyone gets their morals from the Christian God. Goddidit.

Which begs the question: What on earth was the point in asking the original question?

 

[PRmerger]

So it appears that Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Hinduism etc etc are all based on Christian morals anyway. As are the morals of any unbeliever. In fact, everyone gets their morals from the Christian God. Goddidit

True, this. Or, more pointedly, everyone gets their morals from the Catholic God*.

All truth is Catholic Truth.

*There is, of course, only One God.