Without God, Can There Be Objective Rules Of Right And Wrong?

[BeckyJ]

Okay, this trips me up more than anything else.

 

Where do morals come from? Without a god to be a final decision maker, how can any of us decide if something is right or wrong for other people? I guess I am asking, does everything have to be relative?

 

I think slavery was ALWAYS wrong. It was wrong in Biblical times, and it was wrong in America in the 1800s. But how can I say that? Says who? This is the one thing that messes with my head more than anything else. Any thoughts?

[Vixentrox]

Humans are social beings. To enable the group survival, morals become ingrained from one generation to the next. I imagine some things are hard wired by genetics. I mean on TV they had that puppy protecting the mother dog who was hit by a car. If it was two people the one protecting the injured one would be seen as moral no? Was the dog moral or just doing what it is more or less hard coded to do for pack survival?

[BeckyJ]

Humans are social beings. To enable the group survival, morals become ingrained from one generation to the next. I imagine some things are hard wired by genetics. I mean on TV they had that puppy protecting the mother dog who was hit by a car. If it was two people the one protecting the injured one would be seen as moral no? Was the dog moral or just doing what it is more or less hard coded to do for pack survival?

 

But some things that are ingrained were still wrong even when they were widely accepted, werent' they? I mean, back in the 1800s, wasn't slavery wrong even when a large percentage of people supported it? Wasn't it wrong that women couldn't vote until the 20th century?? I mean, doesn't it have to be more than just whatever is accepted by society at a given time?

[oddbird1963]

I think objective moral truth is pretty much an illusion. That is not to say that morals are not real or actual. But there is no "Moral Code 0" or "Moral System Prime" out there in space throwing of versions of itself onto all inhabited planets.

 

I think moral codes are so ingrained in us all that it is hard to think that there could ever be a time where atrocities like slavery were right.

 

From your perspective looking back through history, slavery was always wrong. But as in many things, the people enforcing moral codes at the time did not see it that way.

 

I'm going to give a short, too-simple opinion for the question "how can any of us decide if something is right or wrong for other people?" Whoever has the sheer will to enforce morality onto a society decides what that morality will be.

 

I don't like that answer because I generally don't trust others to make such grand decisions. But I think that is the reality-based answer.

[Vigile]

back in the 1800s, wasn't slavery wrong even when a large percentage of people supported it?

 

It's clearly wrong to you because you have the perspective of modern morality to view it through. I'd call that progress, not an axiom.

[Jedah]

There are no objective rules regarding morality with or without God.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry428446

[par4dcourse]

As Vigile said. And morals progress as we do. There was no moral issue over birth control until recently because there was no birth control. There was no moral issue over cloning or organ harvesting because such things didn't exist. God didn't say in Isaccial 53:25 "Thou shalt not clone thine ass."

It's evolution. Don't kill or be killed to enlarge the pack. Keep the babies and women safe to ensure survival. Don't take thy neighbor's stuff lest he breaketh rule one. Simple pack behavior.

[hollygolightly]

There is a theory that we have evolved morals just as many animals have. For example, primates have been seen banding together to protect a young that is not their very own, or as Thunderf00t on youtube pointed out, piranhas don't eat one another while feeding. The theory requires that we function as a group in order to survive. In order to function as a group we all subscribe to a sort of contractual morality. So, if I want to survive and thrive in society I can't run about stealing whatever car I want, or killing anyone who pisses me off. There are punishments for bad behavior. Depending upon who got to me first, I may be imprisoned, hurt, or even killed. There would be some way to effectively remove me from functional society. I think this is likely where we get certain "hard-wired" morals ... namely a craving for a sense of fairness/justice.

 

As for slavery/women's suffrage/civil rights/etc., I think Dawkins addresses this best when he talks about what he calls the "changing moral zeitgeist." That is that our societal morality is ever-changing ... dare I say, evolving. Dawkins attributes this to linguistic abilities and public discourse. I think he is on to something here. I wouldn't say that slavery was ever morally right. I would say that is was accepted under that societies standards. So let's look at why that could happen. Well, for one thing ... we have technology that wasn't available back then. I don't mean technology that can do the work, however. I believe that the technology to better educate is partly responsible for the shift. For example, we have the technology, not only to bring to light any human rights violations, but we are now able to speak against them. Further, you have to look at what actual education was available. For a very long time, books were barely printed, and not available for everyone. For longer still, holy books were either accepted as the best, if not the only, form of education. It seems to me that these cultures allow for the greatest forms of atrocities. I think that it is because opinions, discourse are stifled. As a result, growth is also stifled. Again we look at slavery. It is no secret that people have long used the great book of multiple choice ... I mean ... the Bible, to justify slavery. Sure you could argue that many Christians were involved in the abolitionist movement in the USA. I would argue that such a thing would have been impossible without the mass production of the Bible which allowed for people to read it as a whole and interpret on their own. Add that to a society that allowed for a relatively free exchange of ideals and look what you get. I would say that it is our intelligence that gets us beyond the roots of our basic animalistic moral roots, and that discourse is what allows for morality to constantly evolve. It is worthy to note, however, that as Sam Harris points out our exchange of ideas, or more to the point, language, is also the cause of many problems. As he says "we are the only species that can forsake life-saving medical research, demonize homosexuals or fly planes into buildings because of what we tell one another about god." In short, morality is a complex problem because we are complex.

 

for added fun check out the article about secular morality on ironchariots.org. also, the Euthyphro Dilemna: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

 

or if you are feeling really adventurous read up on evolutionary psychology ... tons of fun to be had.

[Dagan]

Slavery wasn't wrong in biblical times. See the book of Philemon for an example of how Paul deals with a runaway slave. And Jesus said nothing about slavery other than in a parable (Luke 12:47-48), where he basically condones the practice.

 

See here for more explanation.

 

But you raise an important question: Can we be good without God? Christians say no. I say yes.

 

I believe that when primates evolved social structures, they developed instinctive rules. Don't kill others, because we need all the genetic diversity/helping hands we can get. But sometimes primates fight each other over supremacy/breeding rights, to protect the social structure and means of survival.

 

I believe these basic rules carried on as primates evolved into humans, and became more complex as society became more complex. I think people instinctively understand lawlessness is bad for everyone's survival, and so are the few individuals who challenge the rules of society which keep order and keep us all safe.

 

But the Christian understanding depends on your definition of good. Is it good to only have sex within marriage? Is it good to not get drunk? Is it, conversely, bad to get drunk? Is it good to fill your mind with nothing but god stuff? Is it bad to laugh at a dirty joke? Is it no wonder it's so easy to be a filthy, worthless sinner? If I had to do a hail mary for every lustful thought I had just today, I'd be blathering away non-stop for the next week.

 

If we understand good as basic instinctive things, like don't kill, don't steal, don't hurt others, then I think, yes, we can be good without god. But if we're talking about the complex moral rules imposed on us by Christianity, then those kinds of rules only make sense if you believe in god and that you are one of god's "chosen." Otherwise, they're just nonsense.

 

(nb -- I use "you" as a lazy writing style, not because I mean you as in YOU... oh crap I just confused myself.)

[Guest ikant]

The question of whether we could be moral or not without god would not exist if people did not invent the idea of god. As for objectivity in anything, I wonder when our culture will catch up to the aging historical philosophical reality that nothing is objectively percieved. The moment we seek to understand vis a vis interpreting something with our limited perceptions, it becomes subjective. All of our ideas are based on subjective perceptions. The best definition I have heard of morality is the ability to empathize. The ability to not only comprehend what someone is going through on an intellectual level, but also on an emotional level is the catalyst for the best kind of human relationships. People who seek to justify their brand of morality vis a vis objectivity are not comfortable with themselves and therefore have no genuine morality and therefore seek to impose said morals on others in order to validate their absurdity. I do believe that survival plays a large role in morality, but I believe that due to our ability to communicate, morality becomes so much more. We have the ability to articulate this sense. The feeling that we, as well as others value our existence. In my opinion, the only way we can be truly moral is when we can comprehend that others survival and life quality matter as much as ours. With that comes a whole shitload of issues, such as what society must do with sociopaths, etc.... Many people are not comfortable, are too lazy, or simply cannot comprehend this reality and choose to stick their heads in the objective hole in the ground.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I don't think you can be moral with a god - at least not with the ones that have been candidates so far. The Judeo-Christian god for example has supposedly left us his guidance in a book. Unfortunately, the bible is full of contraction and ambiguity to the point that his own followers aren't in agreement on what christian morals are.

 

Is slavery moral? Based on what you read in the bible, the answer is maybe. The most literal examples (fundy favorites) would seem to indicate that slavery is moral.

 

Is treatment of women as less than men moral? Plenty of passages in the bible can be (and have been) read that way.

 

Is it moral to circumsize your baby son without his permission? Bible says yes, child mutilation is ok.

 

Is abortion moral? You can find passages in the bible to support either viewpoint.

 

Is genocide ok? You bet, if you believe that your god is telling you to do that.

 

So, when it comes down to it, I'll take a humanistic morality over the bible morality any day. In the humanistic model there can be firm reasoning on why something is moral or not. In the biblical method it all comes down to guessing what a deity supposedly meant in a messy set of ancient books. Books of which we don't even have the originals.

[DarthOkkata]

The idea of universal or intrinsic morals is provably false.

 

There are still places in the world where you can buy a wife, where stealing is seen as a positive [from a rival or enemy], where you can get away with murder [providing it's the right 'sort' of person or even an 'honor killing'], where rape is okay, and women are treated as property. In some places, eating your relatives, having sex with children, committing genocide, marrying your sister, human sacrifices, and owning slaves are all considered perfectly moral.

 

The idea of 'absolute or intrinsic morals' is a myth. It's depends on where you are in the world and what culture you're dealing with.

 

The 'shared' morals of civilized society has to do with the interactions between large nations spreading ideas that became largely accepted over time. Not an invisible sky man's 'programing' or some sort of 'genetic predisposition' to certain rules.

 

In some places, eating certain foods, or having the wrong hair length, or even shaving is considered immoral.

 

The world has always been like this. There are numerous places in human history with cultures that hold vastly different moral systems that conflict and contradict each other at every level.

 

Talking about 'universal morals' is just taking our free first world country lifestyle for granted.

 

Do you think that Nazi Germany thought they were being immoral when they committed the Holocaust?

 

No. They really thought they were doing 'God's Work' and that they had the moral high ground.

 

Just like the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, and numerous other religious inspired atrocities throughout history, both Christian and otherwise.

 

They all thought they were being 'moral'. They all really believed they were doing the right thing.

 

It's all about culture and context.

 

There's really no such thing as 'universal moral' and right and wrong are entirely subjective learned behaviors.

 

There are social instincts, but a human child is an entirely selfish creature. They have to be taught morals so they can properly interact with society. There's noting intrinsic or universal about it.

 

Morals have evolved, they aren't static or natural. It's an abstract, that our comfort and control of our environment has allowed us to develop.

[Legion]

I'm almost certain Kant has something profound to say about this, but I Kant remember what it is.

[Skankboy]

The world has always been like this. There are numerous places in human history with cultures that hold vastly different moral systems that conflict and contradict each other at every level.

 

Exactly! I've challenged people on multiple occassions to come up with just one thing that has been considered evil/immoral/taboo in every culture throughout time. It just doesn't exist. If this doesn't disprove objective morality, I'm not sure what could.

[Vomit Comet]

I'm gonna go with Jurgen Habermas on this one: consensus, attained by "communicative action" within a liebensvelt that's been de-colonized from the instrumental world. I'd translate that into plain English, but I'm lazy. And of course, many questions are begged.

[ShackledNoMore]

There certainly are not objective rules of right and wrong with god, at least not unchanging ones. Slavery is an excellent example because it was condoned by the xian god. As others have mentioned it is by contemporary standards under which slavery has come to be considered immoral, and it is a source of difficulty for xians because they've tried to incorporate as a religious tenant, but their bible does not really support that.

 

Or, how about this... If you or I undress, get into our car, drive the the mall, and stroll about with no clothes on (just shopping, NOT engaging in any inappropriate behavior), we would promptly be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. I bet that few contemporaries consider this to be a burning injustice. Now imagine a possible world a few thousand years in the future. Consider that the idea of incarcerating somebody for not covering certain body parts with cloth could be considered as barbaric and immoral as we would consider slavery. In such a scenario, I can easily imagine somebody looking back to the the 21st century and asserting with confidence that throwing somebody in prison for what they do or do not wear was ALWAYS wrong: in biblical times, in America of the 19th century, and in America of the 21st century.

 

Think about it.

[Vigile]

I'm gonna go with Jurgen Habermas on this one: consensus, attained by "communicative action" within a liebensvelt that's been de-colonized from the instrumental world. I'd translate that into plain English, but I'm lazy. And of course, many questions are begged.

 

Is this referring to something like Rousseau's general will?

[Vomit Comet]

Is this referring to something like Rousseau's general will?

 

Rousseau commits the same "noble savage" fallacy as Marx does, painting primitive societies as egalitarian and idyllic. To be fair, anthropology as we know it wasn't around in their times, just the scattered, unsystematic reports of explorers, missionaries, soldiers, etc.

 

Habermas is espousing a version of the Frankfurt School line: science (including the social sciences and humanities) has been bent over a barrel by "instrumental reason" ever since its Enlightenment inception. Instrumental reason = efficiency, production, power, domination. The most horrible instance of instrumental reason was the Holocaust: genocide was nothing new, but building an uber-efficient Fordist machine to carry it out with was. It was an efficient, rational means of carrying out a horrific end. And then the A-bomb was dropped. The Frankfurt people advocated a "human science" that puts human needs first.

 

Habermas was a 2nd generation Frankfurt School guy. Basically, he thought that the Enlightenment was an "unfinished project", unfinished in that it was one-sided and neglected the rights and needs of women, racial/ethnic minorities and non-westerners, the poor, etc. Rather than dismissing it for its inhumanity like the Frankfurt School did, or for its pave-over-everyone universality as the postmodernists did, he tried to rehabilitate it along with modernism in general. A notion of universalism and progress. He also asserted that the Holocaust and other such modern atrocities were aberrations of or deviations from the Enlightenment, rather than emblematic of it.

 

He thought that this would best be attained by "communicative action" in a public sphere. He cites the coffeehouse culture of the 17th century, which allowed for Enlightenment thought to catch on. Eventually, powerful interests (the great powers of Europe, followed by the titans of industry) co-opted it. Money became the "steering mechanism" of society, the ultimate ends. So basically, the public sphere became colonized by instrumental rationality, which was accelerated with the rise of mass media. He wants to "uncouple" the public sphere (or "lifeworld", which is "liebensvelt" in German) from instrumental rationality, which is really more suitable for running a business than it is for society as a whole.

 

Once this happens, communicative action--a sort of "ideal speech situation" where argument and debate occurs without vested interests (a prime example would be corporate-sponsored think tank stooges) muddying things up--would be the order of the day. After hashing everything out, universal/mutual understanding between the various societal fragments would be attained, consensus reached, etc.

 

There are two main critiques of this:

 

1. The Israelis and Palestinians understand one another perfectly. They're not stupid. And yet it persists.

 

2. This sort of consesus-based politics breaks down once you get past about 120 members, as many a communal society has discovered.

 

So...

 

...my own position would be...

 

...ummmmmm... well, shit.

 

You have Zygmunt Baumann, the foremost postmodern ethicist. "Live for the other", which is kind of a variant of the old Golden Rule. "The Other" includes everyone and everything, such as animals and the environment. But then that runs into complications as well. What about Islamic women who claim to prefer the treatment they receive at the hands of men? I personally would chalk that up to lack of education, provincialism, and all-around brainwashing. But they think that western women are brainwashed.

 

I would throw in the Frankfurt School's assertion (now, they were by no means a homogeneous bunch) that authoritarianism of any kind is bad, be it monarchism, theocracy, fascism, or Soviet-style socialism, or whatever else.

[Vigile]

Rousseau commits the same "noble savage" fallacy as Marx does, painting primitive societies as egalitarian and idyllic.

 

But to be fair, R's general will pretty much sums up morality and law as it exists in western society that we have today with a few exceptions. Today slavery is considered immoral by the general will of the population. People are forced to be free as the state enforces this moral principal that is accepted by the majority of the population. The general will evolved and the law followed.

 

I would agree with you that the general will can also be dangerous and needs checks and balances. This is what JS Mill addressed in "On Liberty, " and what the bill of rights and other government checks and balances also hope to address.

 

Unfortunately tyranny of the majority remains a problem and checks and balances are usurped by propaganda and appeal to fear and the general will ends up being wagged by the tail of the media elite, government lobbyists and the bully pulpit.

 

I'm not sure that R put up a valid model of morality that can guide us to progress, but I do think he described rather well the process of morality and law as it existed and continues to exist.

 

BTW, if R committed this fallacy, so did Locke, the father of the bill of rights. It's probably not the worst fallacy to commit. Stalin was probably more of a Hobbes sympathizer and look where that got Russia.

[Vomit Comet]

I would agree with you that the general will can also be dangerous and needs checks and balances. This is what JS Mill addressed in "On Liberty, " and what the bill of rights and other government checks and balances also hope to address.

 

Unfortunately tyranny of the majority remains a problem and checks and balances are usurped by propaganda and appeal to fear and the general will ends up being wagged by the tail of the media elite, government lobbyists and the bully pulpit.

 

One of the greatest things that could happen for the American political process is to throw out all those Madison Avenue bullshit artists who have a good 1.5 years to pile it on as Presidential campaigns drag on and on. This last one was a record breaker, if I'm not mistaken. In Canada, federal elections are announced out of the blue, and they're quick and clean.

 

Also, since when did campaign contributions constitute "free speech"? Public funding of political campaigns is an option to explore.

 

Another problem is the public itself. Ignorance abounds. We here should have no illusions that we are not by and large of an informed minority that has lamentable sway if we're talking numbers. The smart people that get hired on by Administrations are usually stooges and schemers, with little more long-term rationality in mind than the Russian oligarchs. The more educated the population, the more reasonable the society. Even religious education made this so: Jesuits educated the likes of Voltaire, for example.

 

Although education is changing. It used to be that college was the #1 secularizing force. That's not the case anymore. Postmodern touchy-feely pluralism, and the easy access to on-campus religious groups, actually makes college less likely than not-going-to-college to erode religious faith. A very good study was done about this recently, one of those Kuhnian events that blows prior assumptions out of the water. I can dig up the ref if anyone's interested.

 

BTW, if R committed this fallacy, so did Locke, the father of the bill of rights. It's probably not the worst fallacy to commit. Stalin was probably more of a Hobbes sympathizer and look where that got Russia.

 

Marx thought the revolution would just happen on its own, out of mass reaction to the conditions of industrial life. The intellectuals (like himself) were just supposed to be along for the ride, grafting theory onto practice and creating 'praxis', assisting it so that it goes in a smarter, more productive direction. Lenin inverted this: he envisioned a conspiratorial political elite that would scheme their way into power and take control of everything. On his death bed, Lenin was reported to have said "anyone but Stalin" when asked who ought to succeed him. Stalin took this "sieze control" aspect to its furthest extremes.

 

For example, during Lenin's time, the rural peasantry (the first ones to start revolting) were self-organized and largely autonomous, and whenever the urban-based gov't tried to fuck with them, the peasant collectives would just hike grain prices and restore equilibrium. An example of checks and balances. Whereas Stalin rolled in the tanks, proletarianized much of the peasantry (which had become small landholders with the fall of the aristocracy) and forcibly industrialized agriculture. It would be an understatement to say that the transition was rocky.

 

Regarding Hobbes. I often catch a whiff of Hobbes in the evolutionary psychology and biosocial theories that are increasingly popular these days. Not so much with the minds most directly involved (such as Steven Pinker) but many of its lay advocates, which are proliferating throughout the internet. I'm seeing it used to justify conservative non-interventionist policy, along with traditional gender roles and all kinds of other odds and ends. "You see, that's human nature, it's genetic/hardwired, and policy can't change that." Horse shit.

[Vigile]

I have no response VC, but just wanted to note that I enjoy it greatly when you get on your thought flow tangents.

[Dagan]

Good thoughts VC.

 

But I have difficulty believing Stalin was anybody's sympathizer but his own.

[Vigile]

Good thoughts VC.

 

But I have difficulty believing Stalin was anybody's sympathizer but his own.

 

 

Hobbes believed that without strong authority (state of nature) that life is nasty brutal and short. Locke, OTH, believed that people could be pretty much ok on their own but that they just needed a little organization to make sure things don't get too messy. Stalin also seemed to fear freedoms and appeared to have a very dark view of humanity left to its own discretions. This is what I meant by being a sympathizer.

[Yrth]

I'm almost certain Kant has something profound to say about this, but I Kant remember what it is.

XD

[Dagan]

Good thoughts VC.

 

But I have difficulty believing Stalin was anybody's sympathizer but his own.

 

 

Hobbes believed that without strong authority (state of nature) that life is nasty brutal and short. Locke, OTH, believed that people could be pretty much ok on their own but that they just needed a little organization to make sure things don't get too messy. Stalin also seemed to fear freedoms and appeared to have a very dark view of humanity left to its own discretions. This is what I meant by being a sympathizer.

 

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

Stalin definitely didn't trust anyone and I never thought of it in that philosophical framework before.