Does Morality Exist Without A Belief In God?

[Ahab]

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.

You mentioned different sides without labeling one side as good or evil. That's what makes the difference. There is nothing wrong when the good side overcomes the side that is evil because the good side doesn't do anything that is evil, otherwise it would not be the good side and instead just another side that is evil.

[Ahab]

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.

You mentioned different sides without labeling one side as good or evil. That's what makes the difference. There is nothing wrong when the good side overcomes the side that is evil because the good side doesn't do anything that is evil, otherwise it would not be the good side and instead just another side that is evil.

[jaxenro]

"You mentioned different sides without labeling one side as good or evil. That's what makes the difference. There is nothing wrong when the good side overcomes the side that is evil because the good side doesn't do anything that is evil, otherwise it would not be the good side and instead just another side that is evil."

 

I delibertely started with a nature based morality without reference to any form of Divinity. Good and evil isn't a nature based concept there is nothing either good or evil in nature. Each material has it's own nature and acts in it's own manner for it's own survival. Malaria is not evil just deadly to man's body. Snakes are not evil just act within their own nature.

 

So to develop a nature based moral code, and define morality in naturalistic terms without reference to God, than good and evil isn't a concept that exists.

 

What I did do is labeled actions "moral" and "immoral" based on their effect on the survivability of the appropriately sized social unit and attempted to show, on a limited basis, how these coincided with what is known of early moral codes.

[jaxenro]

To cite another example after Israel had become a Kingdom it was considered moral for David to make war on and kill the Ammonites but not for him to cause Uriah the Hittite to be killed in that war to cover David's adultery with Uriah's wife. The distinction bring the Ammonites were outside his social group (the Israelites) and Uriah, even though a Hittite, was inside it because he fought in David's army

[Bikeemikey]

Im pretty sure that God understands moral action as outcome contingent action. 

 

"Its the thought that counts" just doesn't cut it any more.

[jaxenro]

I would agree with that actions do speak louder than words

Again I am trying to derive first the basis for a moral code developed without reference to God on order to discuss if morality can exist without God

[Bikeemikey]

I would agree with that actions do speak louder than words

Again I am trying to derive first the basis for a moral code developed without reference to God on order to discuss if morality can exist without God

 

All moral codes are derived absent God. 

 

it is only after the code is derived that we try to make God responsible for it.

 

Its simple... dont do stuff I dont like. Then i get as many people to gang up on those who oppose said view. The best stick for a long time was religious support for a given set of "stuff I dont like". Thats not so much the case now.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

"You mentioned different sides without labeling one side as good or evil. That's what makes the difference. There is nothing wrong when the good side overcomes the side that is evil because the good side doesn't do anything that is evil, otherwise it would not be the good side and instead just another side that is evil."

I delibertely started with a nature based morality without reference to any form of Divinity. Good and evil isn't a nature based concept there is nothing either good or evil in nature. Each material has it's own nature and acts in it's own manner for it's own survival. Malaria is not evil just deadly to man's body. Snakes are not evil just act within their own nature.

So to develop a nature based moral code, and define morality in naturalistic terms without reference to God, than good and evil isn't a concept that exists.

What I did do is labeled actions "moral" and "immoral" based on their effect on the survivability of the appropriately sized social unit and attempted to show, on a limited basis, how these coincided with what is known of early moral codes.

Good can simply be thought of something that is beneficial to everyone, with evil as the opposite, so the question then is how to behave toward people who want to do only what they want to do without regard to what is beneficial to everyone.

That's the point when morality steps into the picture. What is good/beneficial for everyone, and what isn't.

[Freedom]

Defining morality is like defining what tastes good. I like hot dogs but one of my children hates them. I also like pizza but another child does not. another of my children loves sushi, I despise it. Morality is doing what YOU think is right. Religious morality is, perhaps, choosing to do what another person (god) dictates as being right. I do not live the commandants because I fear god, I follow the commandments because I enjoy the benefits of it. I choose to submit my own morality to the dictates of the spirit. So in this sense, my morality is not dictated by God. I have my own morality that I choose to live. If I did not have the church, I would seek out another morality that suits my wills and pleasures. 

[jaxenro]

No I disagree. Someone may think taking something they want is right and therefore moral because, hey, They want it and can't afford it and, in their eyes it's not fair they can't have it. But I think there is a larger morality that transcends the individual. As I said earlier individuals exercise morality but morality is not individual

[Bikeemikey]

No I disagree. Someone may think taking something they want is right and therefore moral because, hey, They want it and can't afford it and, in their eyes it's not fair they can't have it. But I think there is a larger morality that transcends the individual. As I said earlier individuals exercise morality but morality is not individual

Your thinking that does not make it so. While the only societally enforced morality is that which is agreed to at a societal level, it is not the case that there is only morality at the societal level.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[jaxenro]

Of course my thinking only reflects my thinking. I stated that back at the beginning.

But I dont think that whatever an individual wants to consider moral is automatically moral. At that point anything anyone chooses to call moral becomes moral and morality ceases to have meaning. It's like stating that if an individual chooses to call dogs ducks they will start laying eggs

Edited March 13, 2014 by jaxenro

[ERayR]

Good and evil are eternal.

[Ahab]

Good and evil are eternal.

And yet some people are still trying to learn the difference between good and evil.

[Freedom]

No I disagree. Someone may think taking something they want is right and therefore moral because, hey, They want it and can't afford it and, in their eyes it's not fair they can't have it. But I think there is a larger morality that transcends the individual. As I said earlier individuals exercise morality but morality is not individual

So if I live in a society where it is acceptable to enslave a person based on the color of their skin, and I disagree with this, am I therefore immoral because I go against societal norms, this so-called transcendent morality? Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not? Is it immoral to steal food if you are starving? Is it immoral to lie? What if telling the truth to an ignorant client will have them make a very bad decision? Is gay marriage immoral? society used to think so but not anymore. There are some basic standards that the majority of society agrees with such as torcture, but the U.S government does not feel this is immoral. Is killing suspected terrorists with drones immoral? If there was a single transcendent morality, everybody would belong to the same church and the planet would have a single cultural group. 

[Bikeemikey]

Good and evil are eternal.

 

Which may be the same as saying positive and negative outcomes are both eternal possibilities from action.

 

The question is still what is a positive vs. negative outcome; is it something God decides or is God God because of a willingness to obey principles that consistently lead to positive outcomes.

[Freedom]

Good and evil are eternal.

Yes. Good (having more than one wife, gay rights, eating meat year-round) and evil (having more than one wife, gay rights, eating meat year-round) are eternal. 

 

I would say Gods standards for good and evil are relative. 

[cinepro]

So, can someone explain to me if slavery* is "immoral" according to a God-based morality?

 

*We'll define "slavery" as a situation in which a person (man, woman or child) is considered the property of another, and can be bought or sold as property, and is in a state of involuntary servitude, subjugation and captivity.

Edited March 13, 2014 by cinepro

[Ahab]

Yes. Good (having more than one wife, gay rights, eating meat year-round) and evil (having more than one wife, gay rights, eating meat year-round) are eternal.

I would say Gods standards for good and evil are relative.

Relative to what, would you say?

[cinepro]

Relative to what, would you say?

 

Apparently, to some degree, they're relative to the culture and attitudes of His believers.

[Ahab]

So, can someone explain to me if slavery is "immoral" according to a God-based morality?

To say something is immoral is to say it is not beneficial to everyone, collectively, and slavery would be immoral when it benefited only some people and not all. So consider the situation of the person enslaved. Would the slave benefit by being a slave? Would the slave benefit more by being enslaved than by being freed? Some people voluntarily choose to make themselves a slave to sin, and they really don't want to be freed from their master, but is their enslavement beneficial to everyone, collectively, or just them? Perhaps you'd like a slave of sin to explain it to you.

[jchristopher]

They are legitimate because they produce the most beneficial results and greatest equity when adhered to. 

 

Who decides what is most "beneficial" and "equal" for everyone? 

 

Morality is emergent, because it can take generations for us to awaken to it.

 

How is it we "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.

 

What is "our work?"

 

[jchristopher]

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.

 

What other motivator is there for morality without a hope for a pleasant afterlife? 

[Bikeemikey]

What other motivator is there for morality without a hope for a pleasant afterlife? 

 

So the only reason you live a moral life is the hope of an afterlife? If an afterlife is not real you will all of a sudden decide to act contrary to the morals you currently hold?

 

Im sorry but most humans are not motivated by reinforcement that comes the same day... now i'm meant to be motivated by reinforcement that comes after I die? The idea that an afterlife will have a significant impact on my action today, compared to reinforcement that will impact my life today, is quite ridiculous.

 

Hence the quip that ive always heard as credited to Brigham Young: that a religion that can help us in this life cant save us in the next. Cant find the source but that is the general gist of it... is this mormon rumor mill or can anyone confirm there is a BY quote kinda like this?

Edited March 13, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

Who decides what is most "beneficial" and "equal" for everyone?

How is it we "awaken" to it?

What is "our work?"

Can we at least agree on the idea that there is a way for each of us to do what is most beneficial for all of us, even if some of us don't know what that is?