Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[kayky]

If your desire is to survive and reproduce, then that strategy might be good for you, but if you are more into murdering, raping and robing then you may prefer a different approach to life.
You can still get the benefit of reciprocity by pretending to not harm the other person until such time that the benefits of stabbing them in the back is just to good to resist, and then do it in such a way that nobody knows about it.
If you take harming others out of your arsenal, you are limiting your options, and limiting your ability to get the most out of this life. So why would you believe that it is good not to harm others?

Just for the record, to me reciprocity is not a moral transaction, it is a business transaction.

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

[olavisjo]

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

[kayky]

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

I just don't see this as being "clearly" so. Even if morality began as a social contract, I see no reason why human reason could not--on its own--see the value of morality for morality's sake. I don't think an "accuser" need be involved. I think, as human beings, we can empathize with each other enough to wish to do no harm to another.

How does the insertion of God into the equation make morality more "real"? From the moment human beings began writing down moral codes, morality ceased to be "illusory" and became an evolving tradition. If God were the only source of this tradition, it would have been more consistent throughout human history. That just isn't the case.

[Goat]

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

You keep on saying that.. yet, no one agrees with your line of reasoning. Obviously, you are missing something..

You are making some circular reasoning there.

[TXatheist]

Are you saying that the only reason you care about harming others is because the bible tells you it is wrong?

I do not believe in karma or god, but I still act morally because I do not want to hurt someone whether it be physically or emotionally. Like most people, I am compassionate and guided by my conscience.

There was a time when I did not care at all about others, they were just a means to an end. But God has given me the ability to love others (work in progress). And that ability is in his son, who now lives in me.

You needed the Christian god in your life in order to care about people, but that is not the case for everyone. And you could have found the same care and respect for others through other religions that teach love, acceptance and tolerance such as Buddhism. All you needed was guidance and a reason to care.

[TXatheist]

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

I do not believe in the Christian god, yet I believe that I am a very moral person. I know in my heart that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, and everything else the bible preaches against without believing in the bible. How do you explain this?

Man knew what was wrong and against his nature long before the bible was written. The Christian god did not create morality. His followers merely wrote down, in his name, what man already knew to be true.

[Artheos]

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

You keep on saying that.. yet, no one agrees with your line of reasoning. Obviously, you are missing something..

Argument ad populum?

[Artheos]

As I understand it, the eventual overthrow of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic was initially a hugely unpopular change, and those that did so were decried in various ways for their efforts.

Were they immoral for changing the apparently moral behavior of their society?

Or was the society immoral for changing their previously moral behavior?

Is it moral for nations to behead homosexuals if it is within their law?

Does this mean that gay marriage should be banned, since it is currently the law in the majority of the states, indicating that society at large considers it immoral?

Or perhaps, morality is irrelevant except in the present and within our own culture, and it's just stuff that happened?

The needs and wants of society change. What fueled a lot of the southern slavery was the need for labor because of the introduction of the cotton gin... what fueled the elimination of slavery in the north was industrialization, which eliminated the need for a lot of the unskilled labor.

What drives changes in morality is disagreements in a society about what should be considered moral, and what shouldn't be.

So, are you finished building straw men?

I'm asking for your perspectives of moral behavior in specific situations. A straw man is a directed assessment about someone else's argument that is incorrect. Since I am exploring your perspective, and not misstating it, this is hardly a straw man.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

So, given your last statement regarding my actual questions, which you didn't answer, You are stating that morality is culturally and chronologically dependent and moral in and of itself?

Does this mean that you agree with the following statement: "Might makes Right"?

Yes, I didn't answer them.... because they were making assumptions that were a distraction from the point in hand, and totally irrelavent. ..


Now, are you finished attacking arguements people are not making?

I'm not attacking anything, I have been asking, which you've continued to evade.

You decided to engage in my line of questioning in understanding a perspective. If you don't want to participate, you certainly don't have to.

[Artheos]

One reason to be moral is reciprocity. If I agree not to harm you and you agree not to harm me, we both benefit. This makes social grouping possible, which enhances our ability to survive and reproduce.

How then does morality relate to humane treatment of animals?

[Goat]

It is more like a social contract. It is not based on personal desire but on the idea that what is good for survival of the community is good for the individual as well. I can see how this could evolve into a more complex sense of morality.

Personally, I do believe that we have a connection to God that does or can drive our morality. But I do not see this as proof of God. I find the social contract/evolutionary explanation perfectly adequate. So I would say that the existence of morality in and of itself is not compelling evidence for the existence of God. And it is possible to be perfectly moral without awareness or acknowledgement of our connection to God.

If morality were just a social contract that evolved to help a community survive, then morality would be illusory.
There would be nothing wrong with murdering another person as long as you don't get caught. If you are the only one who knows about it, who would accuse you?
So, clearly if there is no God then there is no morality either.

You keep on saying that.. yet, no one agrees with your line of reasoning. Obviously, you are missing something..

Argument ad populum?

Either that, or .. when we look at his reasoning , and his inability to addess the counterpoints, it is just plain crazy talk. When you look at the 'objective morality' thread, we can look at pages upon pages upon pages of denial of evidence for subjective morality, and not one piece of evidence for objective morality.

There comes a time people become exhausted and don't feel like pointing out evidence yet again, when it is merely ignored, over and over again.