Objective morality outside of God

[Shroud]

My last topic fizzled out, but ended on an interesting question. Many Christians argue that without God, there would be no morality...no reason to be good. I disagree. I believe that morality is independent of any god that may or may not exist. Either way, that's not what I really wanted to debate in this new topic.

Here's the question: Since so many Christians very vocally assure me that without without God there would be no reason to be moral, does that mean that all those Christians are thinking something like, "I'd love to be stealing, raping, and destroying stuff right now. Too bad God would punish me!"

To put it a different way, let's say they're right and there is a God. A booming voice from heaven which is immediately recognized in everyone's heart as God says, "Just to let you guys know, I'm leaving for a few weeks. I'll let you know as soon as I get back. Anything that happens while I'm gone will forever be unknown to me."

What happens in those next few weeks? Would many Christians instantly wallow in a drug induced orgy, kill the jerk at work that always ticks them off, and loot the local stores for as many goodies as they could carry? I don't think so, but what would be stopping those Christians who say that without God, there is no morality?

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Its a Christian who strives to be more Christ like.

As in using his spit as a salve, acting as though mental illness were the result of demonic possession, and condemning others to hell for speaking out against him?

[Darias]

Empathy is the basis for morality.
If it were religion no Christian would ever commit a crime. We know that is not true. Sociopaths are incapable of empathy. Hence they commit murder with no conscience.

While ethics in philosophy tend to coincide with naturally empathic tendencies, I would argue strongly against the idea that they alone are the basis for morality.

I honestly find it quite terrifying that the only reason you're not out killing and raping people right now is because of how such actions would make you feel. Claiming that empathy is the only reason you don't go on a rampage is no different than claiming that only religion can account for morality in society.

Reason, not emotion, is the backbone of ethics. Empathy is simply a useful tool.

There are many people who lack a mental capacity for empathy who are perfectly capable of conducting themselves in an ethical manner. The vast majority of psychopaths are not violent, and the same can be said of most schizophrenics who experience a distorted reality. Unlike schizophrenics, psychopaths don't suffer from psychotic delusions -- in fact the only thing they suffer from are delusions of grandeur. Disturbed people who do act violently do so because they're no longer at the helm; for example, cancer around the pituitary glad, or damage to the frontal lobe can permanently destroy inhibitions and literally transform someone into a monster.

Moral customs might be bizarre and illogical, but ethics aren't. Someone who lacks a sensitive intuition can, through practice, be just as charming and pleasant as the most caring among us; and he can reason to himself that this is the best way to act to create a positive image of oneself. Ethics boils down to doing what's best for others and what's best for oneself. Sometimes these choices conflict, but in most cases they complement each other.

Helping others is it's own reward. A touchy-feely individual might enjoy helping others because of how it makes him feel. A cold rational individual might enjoy helping others because charitable service is something to be proud of, and it ultimately advances his status and worth in society.

Sometimes helping yourself is the best way to help others -- "trickle-down" morality, if you will. A man can start a business and provide jobs for a local community. You can't love another person until you love yourself, etc.

Ultimately a world where most people behave in their own rational self-interest welcomes both the emotional and the logical approaches, and the selfish and selfless.

Of course there are cases where all parties can act in their own self interest to the detriment of everyone involved. If you're an economic thinker, you could almost call this a "market failure" of morality. But there are ways to address those types of dilemmas without resorting to a top-down, authoritarian view of morality that both the religious and the statists follow. Government, gods, and other such fictions are not necessary to promote morality in society; and resorting to force in an effort to do so is counter productive to what everyone wants.

I tend to think that the best way to achieve the goals of the utilitarian -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- is to respect individual rights and allow people to act in their own best interest.

[keithprosser3]

I tend to think that the best way to achieve the goals of the utilitarian -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- is to respect individual rights and allow people to act in their own best interest.

That depends on people being able to correctly identify their own best interests. And would that be long term or short term interests? And having identified their best interests in the optimal time frame, they have to choose and do the acts that achieve their goals. Without - presumably - affecting the rights of others too much.

The only way to be sure that people act truly in their own best interests without affecting the rights of others adversely is for someone to tell them where their best interests lie.

[keithprosser3]

keithprosser3 wrote:

The sensible/logical thing to do is behave selfishly.

I'm sure DI would not object to me pointing out that the what he quoted is somewhat out of context and does not reflect my views or the point I was making in my post?

[zksimmie]

A common misconception is that the Christian is good because they are attempting to earn approval or worse fear God's wrath. While a lot christians hold this misconception theirselves, this is false. The christian doctrine holds that God has already paid the price for his/her righteousness. We're good just because we love him for what he's done and it makes him happy.

[4gold]

My last topic fizzled out, but ended on an interesting question. Many Christians argue that without God, there would be no morality...no reason to be good. I disagree. I believe that morality is independent of any god that may or may not exist. Either way, that's not what I really wanted to debate in this new topic.

Here's the question: Since so many Christians very vocally assure me that without without God there would be no reason to be moral, does that mean that all those Christians are thinking something like, "I'd love to be stealing, raping, and destroying stuff right now. Too bad God would punish me!"

To put it a different way, let's say they're right and there is a God. A booming voice from heaven which is immediately recognized in everyone's heart as God says, "Just to let you guys know, I'm leaving for a few weeks. I'll let you know as soon as I get back. Anything that happens while I'm gone will forever be unknown to me."

What happens in those next few weeks? Would many Christians instantly wallow in a drug induced orgy, kill the jerk at work that always ticks them off, and loot the local stores for as many goodies as they could carry? I don't think so, but what would be stopping those Christians who say that without God, there is no morality?

LOL! I thought this topic was funny!

First of all, if God could leave, it's not God, or at least does not contain the property of omnipresence. But let's play along anyway, just for kicks.

What you are discussing is essentially Hell, right? A place where God is not present or does not exist? And since the Christian God is good, then good does not exist in Hell. And if good does not exist, then moral good does not exist either.

So you are asking in a place where moral goodness does not exist, will people choose to be morally good? I think the answer is obviously no, people will not choose to be morally good, if moral goodness is not an option to be chosen.