There are two seperate questions here being conflated.
1. Can someone be moral without God?
2. Can morality exist in a world without God?
Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.
Printable View
There are two seperate questions here being conflated.
1. Can someone be moral without God?
2. Can morality exist in a world without God?
Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.
Morality exists in the world. God doesn't exist.
Therefore, morality is proven to exist without any gods.
If you're correct, PVC, then where does God get his morals from?
If it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral, then it is God that defines what moral is. If so, if God would have declared murder to be morally correct behaviour, then it would be. Yet I think most people, even those who are religious, would consider murder immoral. A religious person might say that God would never declare murder to be something good, beacuse God is good and murder is evil.
What does that mean? It means that moral exists independently of God.
If you base your moral values solely on religion, then it must follow that you consider any behaviour potentially morally correct. If some lost part of the Bible was discovered, that revoked the fifth commandment ("You shall not kill") and replaced it with "You shall kill", then a such a person would change his moral values regarding murder.
If you don't consider every kind of behaviour potentially morally correct, then you must accept that moral is defined by something else than God. Any other conclusion is illogical.
Your argument as to '2' is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
From the Stanford University Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
If you claim that morality cannot exist without God, then tell me which god. Because Odin's morality differs somewhat from that of Ganesh.Quote:
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
It is? Thank you for that I'll just blame the devil for not returning that wallet I foundQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
From a biology perspective, morality is defined by a collection of guidelines which evolved as [our] ancestors did passed down through the generations from parents to offspring. The framework demarcates more or less where collective interests trump those of the individual. Incidentally, such a framework of behaviour (moral = good, not moral = bad) which is enforced by a broader society is not exactly unique to the human species.
Got some proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Onus of proof is on you mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Seriously, the quality of trolling has severely declined recently, ever since ACIN hung up his trolling hat.
I thougt the onus of proof is on the one who makes wild claims. If he said he lacked the faith to belief in a god, the burden of proof would be on me, but the claim that nothing like a god exists would require proof, and any fact requires proof, and he knows for a fact there is no god. I then ask is this his faith or does he know this for a fact, and if so, can he prove it is a fact? If not, then he would be agnostic and not atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Yes, yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I have as much proof that no god exists as I have proof that the Flying Spagethi Monster does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
There is no proof of either existing, which is proof that neither exists.
It's utter delusion, to think that (given the history of religion) the faithful of the Judaic religions have ever really cared how their book tells them to act, only that they should, and at times by any means necessary.
Ah, now you are reaching too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Can't prove a man killed X? Then he didn't do it according to our laws.
Burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
He might have done it, but there is just not enough proof to put him behind bars.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But you usually goes with the negative answer without proof, at least until new evidence manifest, otherwise the existance of the Flying Spagethi Monster is about as certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
And there's not one assumption about God but several:
The assumption that he is the creator of the universe.
The assumption that he has knowledge about earth. (We're less than bacterias compared to the universe, planet wise).
The assumption that this is recent knowledge.
The assumption that he cares about humans.
The assumption that he cares about praying and religion.
The assumption that he cares about induviduals. (See above, you don't care about induviduals when there's 7 milliards of them)
The assumption that he in any way resembles a god decribed in any holy text.
The assumption that he resembles God decribed in the Bible.
Who said anything about the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paltmull
You are missing the point, and putting the cart before the horse. God creates the world and embeds morality within it, humans arise out of the world. We believe what we do today because of the basic morality encoded at the creation of the universe. If God believed murder was Good the universe would have been created differently and we would believe it was Good too.
So there is no contradiction.
If you are asking for a detailed moral code, I don't have one. That was not my claim, however. In order for morality to exist as anything other than personnal preference it must be universal, and that requires an extra-universal valuator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Enter God.
Or, you abandon any claim to anything approaching reality.
Rather like you have to abandon any claim to us being more than animals without some for of soul.
But if that is the case, PVC, why do a multitude of mutually incompatible moralities exist? And why do some people lack a conscience?
[Some people and some societies are more moral than others, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Why should that be the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well that one is easy; we are simply another form of animal. One with a very high brain capacity and the ability(being on two legs) to effectively handle tools compared to other animals, but we are still animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Universal values require a universal valuator. Siad valuator would be "God", how you define this "God" is another issue entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
That explains why you'll rutt with another male's female in defiance of morality then, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It doesn't explain why you're involved in this argument, given that it is apparently totally pointless in your world.
I don't see how that should necessarly follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Universal values require a universal valuator, fine, let's assume this is true. Why should this universal valuator be something outside of this universe? An omnipotent being, a creator of the universe?
'All tigers are striped. Therefore, there must be a painter who paints them' - that's not true, is it?
Honest answer but it poses as many questions as it answers. Do other species know morality having arisen from the same universe? Which morality is actually the most moral? Is morality tied to a (lack of?) conscience? Does loss or development of same imply a loss or development of morality within an individual? (The elderly will surely thank you for your answer. ~;)) What do our changing morals imply about our past?
By contrast, Louis' question hints at an alternative: that morality is simply the set of guidelines that evolved as the species did, that these guidelines allow an individual to judge and avoid conflicts with the wider interests in advance, and that the reason for different ideas of morality is simply the fact that they evolved in disparate colonies of the same species as part of a different culture. It also explains why morality changes and why morality in isolated colonies of humans tends to develop rather different from open societies which are more exposed to the wider world at large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
In this case you should not capitalize god.
The 20's called; they want their view of women back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I was talking about basing your moral values on a specific religion, Christianity in this example. I was not referring to your statement regarding the existence of God as necessity for the existence of moral, but rather the claim that "it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values".Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
How about human biology? I'm certainly not an expert on this, but IIRC helping others and working together with others makes your body produce endorphines. Basic moral values may very well be a product of our genes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Basic moral values are inherent in any social creature.
A creature with no morals cannot properly interact within a group, so basic premises such as don't murder are inherently moral simply because of the necessity of the creatures to survive.
Yup.
One assumes in this case that God's nature is inherrent in the universe, I don't like the inside/outside question because I think it's a bad descriptive analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Rubbish, it is immoral to kill, but animals do it all the time without hesitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It is, in point of fact, immoral to kill a single babe to save an entire city, even though that is the more logical and utilitarian choice the destruction of the city is still preferable.
So do humans lol. your point fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Even more lol. it is immoral to kill one. but allowing millions of deaths? preferable.Quote:
It is, in point of fact, immoral to kill a single babe to save an entire city, even though that is the more logical and utilitarian choice the destruction of the city is still preferable.
This is why i dont like the religious in my government.
Predators is a work of the devil then? Even intraspecies killing are "regulated" and not randomly done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Then you're killing an entire city to save one child. And that's even more immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sure, at killing a child for something that might save a city might be the most immoral choise, but your example goes into the tragic genocidal vallain territory (it's usually thier child).
This is philosophy, not religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Let me expand the example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
An army besieging a city gives the governors of the city an ultimatum, kill one single child or see the entire city destroyed. The besiegers are trying to get the city to commit an evil act, the people who agree will be selfish, immoral. They want to save their own lives. If the whole city accepts sacrifice then they will all die, but they die clean and the besiegers lose. If they kill the child the besiegers win.
FTFYQuote:
An army besieging a city gives the governors of the city an ultimatum, kill one single child or see the entire city destroyed. The besiegers are trying to get the city to commit an evil act, the people who agree will be selfish, immoral. They want to save their own lives. If the whole city accepts sacrifice then they will all die, but they die clean and the besiegers win. If they kill the child the besiegers lose.
Your answer to two, of course, entirely depends on your definition on the word "morality". In my vocabulary morality is not universal; moral behaviour is what the vast majority of a given society considers to be right. While different societies have different concepts of morality, there's a fairly large amount of convergion because A) our evolution as social creatures B) societies wich would condone murder, for example, are inevitably dysfunctional and would either reform or vanish into history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Two questions for you (and other theists, if interested)
1. Was it moral for the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites because the "author" of morality told them to do so?
2. In earlier days leaders of your religion have sanctioned slavery, murder and whatnot as being part of "God's will". Nowadays most members of your religion disapprove of those things. Christians from all ages and places may agree that morality is a universal code of conduct, but not about what it actually contains. In practical terms, how is your notion of morality not subjective?
Even if by that decision, lots of babies in the city then die? Remember, most moral systems assign culpability for non-action against evil too - it is not considered moral to simply step aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am a big fan of the monkeys who have dedicated their life to Jesus Christ and our Lord.
In the name of God, they look after monkeys who even are born retarded, even though it would be better for the tribe to abandon them. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
I think the point of the dillemma is that if the governor decides not to to sacrifice the child and the city gets massacred, the latter is still the doing of the besiegers, while the former would have been on the hands of the governor.
Another scenario would be that you're driving a bus, carrying 50 passangers across a bridge. The bridge begins to shake violently and is about to collapse. You've come to a halt, but realise that you still have time to drive the bus across the bridge to safety. However, in the chaos a motorcycle driver has fallen from his bike and now lies unconcious before the bus. Because of all the debris there is no space, and no time to move around him.
Personally I would both sacrifice the child and drive over the unconcious motorcycle driver. Both of them would die regardless of what you chose, chosing sacrifice is nothing more than damage control. Refusing to do so because you're unwilling to get blood on your own hands is, in my opinion, self-righteous cowardice.
The point is that all human life if of equally value, morally it is wrong to sacrifice one life for another. If the hypothetical city has 100,000 habitants then that baby's life has been weighed 100,000 times and been deemed of less worth than that of another human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
That is what makes the sacrifice so very wrong.
Your hypothetical motorcycylist is somewhat different, as you have been placed in a situation where you have to make an immidiate decision, where the cyclist is already going to die on the bridge, and without an antagonising force. Running over him is still morally wrong, but perhaps easier to forgive.
Of course, in that case you could always try to get out and move the cyclist, or get everyone off the bus and tell them to run. Both are better choices than running him over.
Ok, adding that our ever truthtelling demon (that wiped out stronger cities before) also says that the child in question will be spared and risen up in a nice family. Spicing it up, killing the child will give the demon the killers soul, since the soul will be damned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm sure that it will be statues of the killer will be rised up in the city, telling moral lessions about his soul damned deeds.
I'm not sure I follow you. To me it's simple: 100,0000 is a vastly greater number than 1. The child isn't deemed of less worth than another person, it's deemed of less worth then 99.9999 other people. I also assumed that in your example the child would die anyway, either when the besiegers storm the city and kill everyone or when he/she's sacrificed to save the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Do you believe that it's impossible for any action, by itself immoral, to be justified by it's consequenses? (i.e. Immanuel Kant's example of how it's wrong to lie to a known murderer)
Incidentally, I just handed in an over 3000 word long essay on Smart's utilitarianism yesterday..
While you could argue that you have valued on life as being less than 100 000, the baby (I'd rather prefer a person in this example) is being sacrificed for each and every inhabitant of the city. To further underscore this fact, you could end up sacrificing the 100 000 population in favour a 10 million one in a different war. This 10 million population may further be sacrificed in different cases - et cetera. You would end up wondering just who it is that you are doing these sacrifices for. In theory, it does not have to be anyone at all - you are just doing maths.
So while deontology poses a dilemma, so does utilitarianism.
"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic"