Do Absolute Morals Exist Without God?

[Vigile]

But this also seems to linger on the edge of mere custom. In the US people will use their cells on public transit. In Japan they don't. In other countries they may or may not.

 

Yeah, probably, but I still think it's a good example of how moral behavior is enforced too. I remember when I lived in Italy it was fairly common for Italians to keep one another in check via expectations and shame. If your friend were to steal something, for example, you and likely your other friends would shame them and show their disapproval. I've long believed that the police aren't truly a thin blue line. They are necessary of course, but it's not police that hold society back from chaos. If that were true, with the worthless officers they have here in Russia, Russia would be in absolute chaos and it wouldn't be safe to go out into the streets. Most people care what others think about them and they care about what other people do, so in general, society sets many of our moral guidelines and most of us fall within a general consensus about what they are and what behaviors we find acceptable within ourselves and our friends and family and acquaintances.

 

That said, Kruzner raises an important point about higher morality. Society may think invading a foreign country is ok, whereas only a few might believe it wrong. Is society correct here? Why or why not? But that's another question I think than the one covered in my cell phone example.

 

So, what is the difference between a custom that is practiced in various locals and an actual moral issue?

 

It's a good question, but I think they are at least enforced in similar ways.

[mymistake]

Well, some Christians manage to come up with the concept of absolute morals and advocate the use of them. BUT, the results of what they typically advocate are horrific.

 

For most Christians the absolute part is just lip service. They want to feel like God is absolute so they tell themselves God's morality is absolute. However the typical Christian ignores the Old Testament (when they find doing so convenient) and excuse this this with "Jesus completed the law", "Jesus gave us a new Covenant" or some similar cop out. Thus their morals are relative and subjective despite their claims to the contrary. Something isn't absolute if it changes.

 

Prime example would be that because it is always wrong to kill, then killing Hitler would have been wrong. Likewise, the right to lifers that would advocate saving a baby's life at the expense of the mother's life will almost certainly be advocating some moral absolute. God knows what that absolute is - it's certainly beyond my comprehension.

 

I remember studying the issue of morality in psychology at uni and they talked about a guy called Laurence Kohlberg and six levels of moral functioning. Can't remember if Christianity ever got a specific mention. But the black-and-white rule based approach was right down there at the bottom of the pile. However, it was above "do the right thing because you'll be caught out and punished". Long time ago - early eighties.

 

Interesting

[Ouroboros]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

It gets really sticky when you start trying to protect others from harm too. Drugs are bad, M'kay?

And religion adds: don't harm God's feelings. Don't masturbate or watch porn.

[Vigile]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

It gets really sticky when you start trying to protect others from harm too. Drugs are bad, M'kay?

And religion adds: don't harm God's feelings. Don't masturbate or watch porn.

 

There ya go. Religion is immoral.

[Ouroboros]

An interesting example of how society enforces morality (skip to 5 minutes in):

 

...

 

In Japan, it is rude to use a cell phone on the train or a bus and they let you know.

I remember a radio show where a guy (pastor actually) argued that using SUV was immoral because they used so much gas.

[blackpudd1n]

I'm not a fan of the word "morals". To me, morals seem very black-and-white, very absolute, and don't really fit in in a word where we not only have shades of gray, but a rainbow full of different colours. Taking a moral stance on one subject, I feel, leaves one open to having to compromise a different moral stance, which is where everything becomes unstuck. In essence, it's hard to have morals and not be a hypocrite in some way.

 

As a result, I do not subscribe to having "morals". I have principles, which I use to guide my stance when asked to take a position on any subject. I feel that that allows me to be more honest with myself, and allows me room for the inevitable exception to every rule. For instance, I do not agree with murdering another person. However, if another person was about to shoot a child, then yeah, I'd shoot the person to protect the child, even if that meant that I potentially killed the other person.

 

The problem with the word "moral" is that it is too intertwined with the word "absolute", and so, I reject it altogether. I've spent enough of my life being a hypocrite.

[tothemorning]

Absolute morals? Absolutely not. Morals for the sake of societal civility? You betcha; and those morals are absolutely subject to change.

 

Criminal laws of old were based on the morals of the day; as morals changes through the general populous so do the laws.

[Vigile]

An interesting example of how society enforces morality (skip to 5 minutes in):

 

...

 

In Japan, it is rude to use a cell phone on the train or a bus and they let you know.

I remember a radio show where a guy (pastor actually) argued that using SUV was immoral because they used so much gas.

 

Might be for some people. If it can be linked to causing environmental damage to burn fossil fuel and isn't balanced against your current need.

 

I'm not going to go off on a crusade but am just addressing the logic here,

[Vigile]

I have principles,

 

I think that's fair, but the word can be misused as well. It's one of my pet peeves when people stand on principle over practicality. My brain is a little hazed at the moment so I can't think of a good example, but it's something my wife does all the time that I have to bite my tongue over.

 

I just thought of a good example. My wife's cousin is always an hour late wherever she goes. My wife gets all pissed off every time, but since the time is so predictable, I always tell her "If you want Lena here at 3, tell her to arrive at 2." My wife refuses to because in principle, her cousin should not be late and should make an effort to be on time.

 

This makes no sense to me.

[Vigile]

Criminal laws of old were based on the morals of the day; as morals changes through the general populous so do the laws.

 

Here you run into some problems though. If you equate the law with morality, is the law moral? Even current legislation? Is it moral for the NSA to spy on American email/cell conversations without a search warrant? There are contradictive laws here. Was slavery at one time truly moral or has it always been immoral, just legal? Is it moral to deny gay couples marriage? It gets pretty messy when you examine it.

[Ouroboros]

Might be for some people. If it can be linked to causing environmental damage to burn fossil fuel and isn't balanced against your current need.

 

I'm not going to go off on a crusade but am just addressing the logic here,

I know. And I'm not arguing against it either. It's just another example of morals that some people have but not others.

[Ouroboros]

Criminal laws of old were based on the morals of the day; as morals changes through the general populous so do the laws.

Case law or King's law? Or perhaps you meant before the Roman Empire?

 

In the Old Testament's time, it was based on the morals of the religious elite.

 

King's law was based on the King's morals.

 

Case law on the skill of lawyers and the decision of 12.

[Vigile]

Might be for some people. If it can be linked to causing environmental damage to burn fossil fuel and isn't balanced against your current need.

 

I'm not going to go off on a crusade but am just addressing the logic here,

I know. And I'm not arguing against it either. It's just another example of morals that some people have but not others.

 

This just made me think of another way religion gets it wrong. Most don't apply degrees to immoral behavior. If it's immoral to drive an SUV when you could easily get around in a smaller, more fuel efficient car instead, it will never compare to killing someone. Religion determines that eating pork and masturbating is on par with cheating on your wife, stealing from orphans and committing genocide.

[blackpudd1n]

I have principles,

 

I think that's fair, but the word can be misused as well. It's one of my pet peeves when people stand on principle over practicality. My brain is a little hazed at the moment so I can't think of a good example, but it's something my wife does all the time that I have to bite my tongue over.

 

I just thought of a good example. My wife's cousin is always an hour late wherever she goes. My wife gets all pissed off every time, but since the time is so predictable, I always tell her "If you want Lena here at 3, tell her to arrive at 2." My wife refuses to because in principle, her cousin should not be late and should make an effort to be on time.

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

I think the context of how you use the word "principle" makes all the difference. Notice I said that I HAVE principles. Your wife is standing ON principle in the case of her cousin. I have principles that guide me. Standing on a principle is basically just making a stand and being stubborn. And yeah, that would totally piss me off, too (Empathising with you here). I like the "ish" rule when catching up, especially if I'm not sure that I can make it on time: 2-3ish is what I'd say.Then it's not set in stone, and allows everyone a bit of flexibility.

[kruszer]

In a world of absolute morality, killing adolf hitler and lying to someone unattractive telling them they're cute are both immoral. I don't think I want to live in a world with absolute morality or absolute anything else for that matter. I like my subjective morality anyway. Besides, biblical morality is even more subjective than western secular morality anyway.

 

Yeah but in a world of subjective morality, majority sets the social rules and the minority is wrong. That means Martin Luther King and other civil right activists were wrong to mess with status quo, and if they'd never stepped up, slavery and segregation would be perfectly moral today.

 

It is because we live in a world of subjective morality that MLK made breakthroughs in the 60's and slavery ended a hundred years before that. As we grow wiser we reform our view on morality.

 

Who's to say we've grown wiser? Who's to say that "equality" and "justice" are good things? Who defines what is good? And good for whom? Why is looking out for the good of another something that should be done, if we're just chemicals striving to survive and pass on our genes to the next generation.

[kruszer]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

Precisely. That's where we get into the debate about abortion again.

[blackpudd1n]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

Precisely. That's where we get into the debate about abortion again.

 

Just as well we're in the General Theological Issues section.

[Vigile]

Who's to say that "equality" and "justice" are good things? Who defines what is good? And good for whom? Why is looking out for the good of another something that should be done, if we're just chemicals striving to survive and pass on our genes to the next generation.

 

The short answer is "We" say. This can be backed up in many, much more complex, but IMO valid ways. Religion, however, does a very poor job at answering your questions as has been demonstrated lightly in this thread.

 

Another short, but related answer, is that people are social animals and most of our morality derives out of necessity in order to maintain a healthy group.

[FeelHappy]

Absolute morals from god? The same god who kills David's son from Bathsheba and then causes David's wives to be raped in front of the whole of Israel, as punishment for David's sin? This is the absolute morals we're talking about? I'd prefer my man made morals, they're less heinous.

[Ouroboros]

This just made me think of another way religion gets it wrong. Most don't apply degrees to immoral behavior. If it's immoral to drive an SUV when you could easily get around in a smaller, more fuel efficient car instead, it will never compare to killing someone. Religion determines that eating pork and masturbating is on par with cheating on your wife, stealing from orphans and committing genocide.

Exactly.

 

And perhaps that's the difference between moral and absolute moral. Moral, on its own, really means it's scalable.

[Vigile]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

Precisely. That's where we get into the debate about abortion again.

 

Well, here you get into the question of what a person is. If you don't answer that first, you can't answer the question of harm. I won't say more than that here so as not to sidetrack on this issue that's been flogged to death around here.

[Ouroboros]

In my book, I've reduced morality to "don't hurt others."

Yeah. That's a very concise definition. The difference is what people mean with "hurt" and "others" though.

 

Precisely. That's where we get into the debate about abortion again.

Yeah. That's true too.

 

I remember something about when ancient Greece had slaves, they excused it simply by claiming the slaves to be lesser kind of citizens. Don't remember the term, but it was easy to excuse it since they were not really people. Other than that, moral was very important. This was the case when the British Empire was dealing in slaves from Africa too. If they're not humans, there's no harm. Women are only worth half a man in several Muslim countries, and that's why they think it's okay to stone them for being victims of rape etc. Not human. No harm. And we have the same trend here in America. Terrorists are not citizens, therefore torture is acceptable.

[Vigile]

I remember something about when ancient Greece had slaves, they excused it simply by claiming the slaves to be lesser kind of citizens.

 

The Nazis (Godwin!) did the same with the Jews. They were called rats, subhuman, etc... The Americans did the same with their slaves and Indians (so did the Spaniards and the British colonialists). I suspect it's a pretty common tactic, which in turn shows just how strongly correlated morality is with human empathy. Empathy needs to be removed in order to get humans to do the worst to one another.

[Ouroboros]

The Nazis (Godwin!) did the same with the Jews. They were called rats, subhuman, etc... The Americans did the same with their slaves and Indians (so did the Spaniards and the British colonialists). I suspect it's a pretty common tactic, which in turn shows just how strongly correlated morality is with human empathy. Empathy needs to be removed in order to get humans to do the worst to one another.

Exactly.

 

And during the inquisition, even though witches were humans, they were tortured to rid them of their demons and save their souls. So in that case, the harm wasn't the "bad" harm, only a lesser harm so they wouldn't end up in Hell and worse harm. So "hurt" or "harm" is relative to opinion as well.

[Vigile]

Today we have Al Qaida, terrorists, the enemy, etc... instead of freedom fighters, someone's son, what have you. Soldiers will never shoot the other guy if they think the other guy is just following orders or fighting for an understandable cause like protection of his homeland/way of life.