Does Morality Exist Without A Belief In God?

[jaxenro]

Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God?

 

If so what is its source?

 

Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there?

 

Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife?

 

[Anteojito]

Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God?

 

If so what is its source?

 

Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there?

 

Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife?

 

Absolutely. What a sad thought that humans are incapable of being moral unless there is some supreme being to bless us if we do and to punish us if we don't. 

[MiserereNobis]

Plato dealt with this issue in "Euthyphro" and it has been called the Euthyphro Dilemma.  I think before you all get going on this topic you should do a quick perusal of the dilemma on wikipedia.  Here's the intro:

 

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

 

Check it out, so that you can use as part of your discussion the 2500 years that people have been thinking and writing on this topic.

[JLHPROF]

Absolutely. What a sad thought that humans are incapable of being moral unless there is some supreme being to bless us if we do and to punish us if we don't. 

 

Nobody said that humans were incapable of being moral without God.  However, the question remains, how do we recognize what is moral without God.

That is the difference.  We can be moral without God and we can be immoral while believing in God.  But without God there really is no moral or immoral - only societal norms.  In some societies all manner of evils are accepted as moral.  Without a God to clarify we are stuck with whatever we accept being the only recognized morality.

Edited March 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Yes, and yes. Even in LDS theology God is not the source of morality.

 

I don't think moral principles are legitimized because they are dictated by a powerful being, like God. They are legitimate because they produce the most beneficial results and greatest equity when adhered to. They are legitimate because they are legitimate, if you'll excuse the tautology. They are absolutely subject to debate, and our understanding of morality becomes stronger the more we think about and practice and even debate about morality. Morality is emergent, because it can take generations for us to awaken to it.

 

The afterlife question is interesting. Lack of an afterlife removes eternal punishment for our worst villains, but it also increases motivation to "do our work while we are able".  Afterlife or lack of it can be a motivator, but neither paradigm precludes the formation of a good moral system.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Gray

[thatjimguy]

Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God?

 

If so what is its source?

 

Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there?

 

Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife?

 

 

 

Yes, and the source is our collective thoughts and writings about morality that have evolved with time. I think the only difference between religious and non-religious morality is the idea of blessings and curses from supernatural powers.

 

However, morality has zero to do with the afterlife and the hope for it.

[JLHPROF]

Yes, and yes. Even in LDS theology God is not the source of morality.

 

I don't think moral principles are legitimized because they are dictated by a powerful being, like God. They are legitimate because they produce the most beneficial results and greatest equity when adhered to. They are legitimate because they are legitimate, if you'll excuse the tautology. They are absolutely subject to debate, and our understanding of morality becomes stronger the more we think about and practice and even debate about morality. Morality is emergent, because it can take generations for us to awaken to it..

 

That is a very humanistic view - we are the source of morality as we learn what benefits society?  I find that hard to accept, and while God himself may not be the source of morality in LDS theology, the eternal principles and laws he represents are the source of morality.  True morality is not man made.

[bluebell]

Gray-

 

What is the source of morality in LDS theology?

[Ahab]

Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God?

If so what is its source?

Are we all born with an understanding of this basic morality if there is no belief in God to have placed it there?

Is there morality without th belief in an afterlife?

To believe there is such a thing as morality is to believe there is such a thing as good,.or goodness, as well as the opposite which we call evil. God is simply a term we use to refer to a kind of being that is good or the best kind of being, and any kind of being that is not the best kind of being is not God.

[Gray]

That is a very humanistic view - we are the source of morality as we learn what benefits society?  I find that hard to accept, and while God himself may not be the source of morality in LDS theology, the eternal principles and laws he represents are the source of morality.  True morality is not man made.

 

No, I don't think that we're the source of morality. I think we awaken to morality. We've been doing so very gradually for many thousands of years. 

[Gray]

Gray-

 

What is the source of morality in LDS theology?

 

Morality in LDS theology is a lot like God in mainstream Christian theology. Uncreated and eternal, without beginning or end.

[JLHPROF]

Morality in LDS theology is a lot like God in mainstream Christian theology. Uncreated and eternal, without beginning or end.

 

Now this I agree with 100% (it had to happen sooner or later Gray  ).  God is as bound by eternal law as we are or he would cease to be God.  And that is where morality originates.  But I still say God represents true morality to us mere mortals, even if he isn't the originating source.

[pogi]

Is there such a thing as morality without a belief in God?

 

That is kind of like asking the question does God exist without a belief in God?  The answer is yes.

 

If you are asking, is a belief in God necessary for one to be moral?  The answer is no.  As Rob points out below, we all are endowed with the light of Christ wether we believe it or not. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

If we are all born with the light of Christ then yes, of course, man has morals regardless of a belief in God. Even atheists have morals.

[Gray]

Now this I agree with 100% (it had to happen sooner or later Gray  ).  God is as bound by eternal law as we are or he would cease to be God.  And that is where morality originates.  But I still say God represents true morality to us mere mortals, even if he isn't the originating source.

 

I'm always happy when I can say something that someone else will agree with, as it doesn't happen that often.

[jaxenro]

Plato - during my fifteen year sojurn from the church I became a Deist and delved quite heavily into Plato and the other Greco-Roman philosophers along with Thomas Paine and a few others. As they say in philosophy there is Plato and the rest is commentary. In fact I have tried on a few message boards a take on the Symposium where all who want write a brief talk on a given subject then a moderator posts them all at one time, without names attached, and the rest are free to discuss and debate without regard to author. If there is any interest we could try it here.

 

I have my own theories developed over the last fifteen years based on evolution and the needs of species survival but I would like to read others opinions first. I mentioned the afterlife for a specific reason related to morality I will develop in time. And given my rediscovery of Joseph Smith I am sure my will be modifying my theories. One thing I liked about Deism is with no doctrine we modified our beliefs constantly in the light of new discoveries. But I am more here to learn than push my own pet theories

 

What is the official LDS position on creation, evolution, guided evoluton, etc.?

Edited March 12, 2014 by jaxenro

[cinepro]

Yes, and yes. Even in LDS theology God is not the source of morality

 

That's a good point.  LDS doctrine does seem to indicate that the "moral law" of the universe is separate from our God.  So while we may argue that we wouldn't know about these moral laws if God didn't tell us, it's hard to say that they wouldn't exist if God didn't exist.  Obviously the sweater unravels pretty fast once you pull that thread, but it's an interesting way to look at the questions.

 

As for the questions themselves:

 

1. Depends on how you define "morality" (semantics), but by the way I define it, yes.

 

2. No source needed. If a non-god source must be theorized, then I suggest the trees.

 

3. No.  Exhibit A: sociopaths.

 

4. (See #1)

Edited March 12, 2014 by cinepro

[strappinglad]

Scripture seems to indicate that there comes a moment when a person and/or a people become so amoral or immoral that the Spirit ceases to strive with them and they are left to kick against the pricks. I have read about cultures and civilizations where it has apparently happened. In my personal judgment , there are a few individuals exposed on youtube that are there or really close.

As for the light of Christ, I was always of the opinion that it was a gift bestowed not an innate quality, but I am open to being instructed.

[Anteojito]

Nobody said that humans were incapable of being moral without God.  However, the question remains, how do we recognize what is moral without God.

That is the difference.  We can be moral without God and we can be immoral while believing in God.  But without God there really is no moral or immoral - only societal norms.  In some societies all manner of evils are accepted as moral.  Without a God to clarify we are stuck with whatever we accept being the only recognized morality.

"But without God there really is no moral or immoral only societal norms" - Semantics

 

"In some societies all manner of evils are accepted as moral" - Right sort of like the OT when God told the Israelites to wipe out entire cities

[Bikeemikey]

"But without God there really is no moral or immoral only societal norms" - Semantics

"In some societies all manner of evils are accepted as moral" - Right sort of like the OT when God told the Israelites to wipe out entire cities

You are funny! Edited March 12, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Stroopwafel]

Personally, I find the view/doctrine that moral laws are seperate from God interesting but puzzling at the same time.

 

OK, let's say God isn't the source of morality but rather that he abides by the rules of it, the moral law being eternal (after all, God attained his godhood by being a human abiding by these eternal principles), and uncreated (like the circle of a ring).

 

My question: do we know (can we know?) what the principles of this eternal moral law exactly consist of? If they are revealed by God, then what are they specifically?

Edited March 12, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[altersteve]

Yes, of course. I've met some pretty amazing people who just happen to be atheists.

[jaxenro]

Depends on how you define "morality" (semantics)

 

That is the root question, isn't it? How do we define morality? Without a definition how can we then discuss it's existence. So let me start with my own definition for all of you to pick to pieces. And I will leave discussion of divine origin until the end. And let me state this plainly; the following is my opinion throughout not any others nor do I make any claim for it beyond what I can defend here so I won't preface each statement with that fact. Writing "in my opinion" over and over gets tedious to read.

 

But first some background that I am basing in what some would call pre-historical times. Let me start with this first concept in the definition:

 

Morality is not an individual but a social concept.

 

Yes individuals exercise morality, or don't as the case may be, but most moral actions, and moral codes, are described as interactions between the individual and others. The Ten Commandments, perhaps one of the earliest written moral codes, describes an individuals actions in relationship to God or to other individuals or groups of individuals.

 

Man is a social animal. By this I mean like the wolf or lion and unlike the leopard or other solitary animal his early existance was pack (not herd) related. A typical grouping could be described by Jacob's extended family unit consisting of wives, servants, children, childrens wives, etc. The family or social groupings interacted with and competed with other social groups. As can be seen in various tribal societies competition for grazing areas, hunting grounds, game, water, and other resources can be fierce and deadly. Groups that were able to maintain greater social cohesion and operate as a unit eclipsed groups that were unable to do so. This we have seen demonstrated time and time again from such diverse examples as warfare to groups settling new areas. Why did some settlements succeed and others fail given similar natural resources? Usually the failures can be credited to some loss of unit cohesion. Thus my second concept:

 

A moral action is one that enhances group cohesion

 

And it's corollary third:

 

A immoral action is one that destroys group cohesion

 

Groups that followed these natural moral laws survived, groups that contravened these natural moral laws declined. Theft within the group, fighting within the group, killing another member of the group, raping a member of the group or sexual relations with another members spouse, would all destroy group cohesion.

 

Often among such tribal or group based societies actions that were immoral within the group were considered moral, in fact often desirable, when practiced on individuals outside the group. Hence killing and theft within the group was immoral but killing and taking the property of a different, often enemy group, was considered not only moral but often a sign of status. A good warrior, who returned with plunder, was a good provider.

 

Before I take this to the next level of larger social groupings I will let you all ridicule this first part.

Edited March 13, 2014 by jaxenro

[The Nehor]

The LDS position is that no, you cannot be moral without God. You can be moral without believing in or acknowledging God in any way but if God were to (inconceivably) die tomorrow and the Light of Christ were to go out morality would vanish and the devil would rule us all.

 

You will never convince an unbeliever of this so why try?

[jaxenro]

Earlier I posted these three statements to define morality next I will show them on a larger scale then the simple expanded family group social structure. Remember we are leaving divine explanations aside for now. (Slight change from group to social cohesion as our group has expanded)

 

Morality is not an individual but a social concept.

 

A moral action is one that enhances social cohesion

 

A immoral action is one that destroys social cohesion

 

Biblically this small family group, Jacob, his sons and family, had now expanded into the Twelve Tribes of Israel, a nomadic nation. Moses led them in the wilderness for 40 years learning to obey the moral codes he provided based on the laws he provided and the Ten Commandments he presented. Israel was commanded not to kill, steal, covet their neighbors property. Yet at the end of this 40 year sojurn they invaded an inhabited land, taking their neighbors propert, killing, stealing, yet all within the confines of their moral code legitimate. Why?

 

Because none of these actions contravened the moral concepts listed above and some of them reinforced them. Warfare has a way of enhancing the social cohesion of each side. The group being attacked stood outside the Israelites social order so killing, stealing, and taking from them had no effect on their internal social order. The social group had expanded in size but the same social codes of morality that worked for the small group translated to the large. What was immoral for interactions within the social group was still moral for interactions outside the social group.

 

We see this throughout history in wars, migrations of peoples, etc. Whether we are discussing hunter-gatherer bands, nomadic hordes, city-states, or different races or sects, typically how one treated members of ones own social grouping differed from how one treated members of another social grouping when practiced on a group level.

 

Next we can discuss how this concept was expanded to apply the moral code to the developing concept of nations and how a nation could be considered to be acting in a moral or immoral manner using the same basic moral principles. Also how the concept of social group expanded for the individual to reach the level it has today. Yet both expanded concepts still are based on these most primitive of moral codes listed above.