The basis of morality.

[McCulloch]

It has been claimed that atheists by definition are amoral. If we do not believe in the spiritual basis of the universe and we do believe that all that is is from materialist causes, we cannot have true morals. That without the belief in the eternal consequences of our lives, we have no motivation to be moral.

On the other hand, it can be claimed that traditional theism also is not a basis for true morality. If you have to be threatened with eternal consequences, if you are only good because someday you will be called to account to an all knowing God, then you are being good not because it is the right thing to do, but to please the all powerful benefactor. The bargain is stated as between gaining the whole world and losing your soul.

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

I originally thought to put this into Right and Wrong, because it deals with morality. But then I thought it would be better in Philosophy because it deals with the philosophical basis for morality. But finally, I moved it to Christianity and Apologetics because each side of this argument is aimed at disproving the validity of the other.

[Goat]

bjs

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

"Correctly"? You can't even provide a hint that the "revelations" are any more valid than any other philosophical grounds. You do not have a method to determine their value that is any better than enlightened self interest. You cannot even show why anyone would conclude that these revelations were not made up out of whole cloth by religious believers and leaders, just like all of the religions that preceded yours.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

This may be what you want to believe, but it is not anything but sophistry.

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion.

But you are. Everyones morals are based on self interest, yours as well as mine. Enlightened self interest broadens the things cared about to others in society, the society itself and the whole world, as everyone who is not mentally ill wants to live in a comfortable world. That comfort is not attainable without cooperation, that cooperation requires rules of engagement that all must adhere to(or face sanctions), those rules are our morals(laws)and they evolve as our understanding of ethics and the interactions with society improves, that understanding is gained through philosophical development informed by scientific study. Or, if one is unable or unwilling)to do this for yourself, reliance on the development done by others(religions, philosophies, etc.).

Do you know of a form of atheistic ethics in which the reason I act morally has nothing to do with me?

Do you know any other basis for morality, in anyone? Those who subscribe to any religion do so because it is best for them, they are just relying on the philosophical work of others instead of that they themselves have determined as best.

Grumpy

I believe that both 'enlightened self interest' and the theistic belief of 'It came from God' both are rationalizations from something very instinctual. What the exact moral values are is shaped by society and the environment, but the desire to find 'rules to live by' is built into us. There are unscrupulous personalities, because in some environments and times, they survive better, but in others, people who cooperate better survive better. It's a matter of game theory to see the balance between more ethical behavior and the not so ethical behavior.

Our genes motivate us a lot more than we realize.

[jgh7]

For me, morality is an infinitely more strong word if God exists than if God doesn't. Keep in mind I don't mean the Christian God.

If God doesn't exist, than the best someone can argue for true morality is to say that there a way for humans to live to get the best enjoyment, fairness, and liberty out of life for all. Atheistic morality is based on maximizing the amount that humans can flourish in this life, and if one is immoral they are hampering that and should be taken care of.

If God does exist, morality is a little different. An afterlife with some sort of consequences based on the actions of this life is what changes the game. Morality is no longer focused on living this one life to the fullest. It's focused now on trying to get oneself on the track to becoming a being that is at a higher level of thought and consciousness. It gives me more inspiration to do things which I would normally say "screw it". It gives me more inspiration to have patience and to try and change myself to become better, because I have the hope that life doesn't end when I die. If life ends when I die, than there's far to little time to transcend the state of being that I'm in, and Id rather just enjoy it as it is. But if there is an afterlife, than I have a reason to try and change myself and believe that I'm going to be heading on a path that leads somewhere more meaningful.

I'd also like to add that I believe certain things like abortion can only be immoral if a God exists. If God doesn't, than who cares if an unconscious life-form is terminated. But if God does exist, than all life has a very long future ahead of it, and terminating a fetus has a much more severe weight on it. That's my opinion.

[Zzyzx]

.

For me, morality is an infinitely more strong word if God exists than if God doesn't. Keep in mind I don't mean the Christian God.

I do not disagree.

Now, how do we determine if a "god" exists?

I'd also like to add that I believe certain things like abortion can only be immoral if a God exists. If God doesn't, than who cares if an unconscious life-form is terminated. But if God does exist, than all life has a very long future ahead of it, and terminating a fetus has a much more severe weight on it. That's my opinion.

I agree, provided that the "god" cares one way or another about human lives. Some of the proposed "gods" seem to have little regard for human life and some support wholesale killing of humans (including the "god of the bible" who supposedly killed all of humanity save eight on a ship).

[LittlePig]

If God does exist, morality is a little different. An afterlife with some sort of consequences based on the actions of this life is what changes the game. Morality is no longer focused on living this one life to the fullest. It's focused now on trying to get oneself on the track to becoming a being that is at a higher level of thought and consciousness. It gives me more inspiration to do things which I would normally say "screw it". It gives me more inspiration to have patience and to try and change myself to become better, because I have the hope that life doesn't end when I die. If life ends when I die, than there's far to little time to transcend the state of being that I'm in, and Id rather just enjoy it as it is. But if there is an afterlife, than I have a reason to try and change myself and believe that I'm going to be heading on a path that leads somewhere more meaningful.

Have you ever thought that making yourself better could be a way to live life to the fullest? Personal, internalized morality is something of an aesthetic exercise. Art for art's sake, journey versus destination kind of thing.

I'd also like to add that I believe certain things like abortion can only be immoral if a God exists. If God doesn't, than who cares if an unconscious life-form is terminated. But if God does exist, than all life has a very long future ahead of it, and terminating a fetus has a much more severe weight on it. That's my opinion.

An opinion obviously not informed by Hell Comes To Frogtown:

When the human race is at stake, every sperm can be sacred.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Personal, internalized morality is something of an aesthetic exercise. Art for art's sake, journey versus destination kind of thing.

Very well said. That's pretty much spot on.

[McCulloch]

For theist, ethics are based in authority. God, as the creator and sustainer of the universe, has the right and authority to communicate moral decrees to His creation. While God can enforce ethical behavior with eternal consequences (and thus it is beneficial for me to live according to His commands), it is His authority that is the basis of ethics for a theist.

So ethics and morality become not a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis, but is merely a matter of finding and correctly interpreting the revelations from the god. Right?

I have discovered that finding and correctly interpreting the revelations of God is a complex matter requiring deep thoughtful analysis.

OK, good. So you are not from the "God said it, I believe it" school of theology. However, if ethics are based on the authority of God, your starting place requires no more complex than a determination of whether this or that particular text is from God. Not wanting to minimize the complexity and thoughtfulness of what comes next, still from where I sit, the starting point is both wrong and often poorly understood or examined by believers. Wrong because it is arbitrary. Xxxxxx is not wrong because it is intrinsically so, it is wrong because the revelation from God says that it is. Poorly understood in that very few Christians in my experience can produce a convincing answer to the question, "Why do you believe that the Bible is from God?" Poorly examined, in that very few Christians have a knowledge of the history of how the Bible came to be.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

Keep away from food sacrificed to idols, obey your masters even when they are unjust, short hair for men, long hair for women, sell your possessions, ...

How do you jump to this conclusion? Cannot atheists have genuine love or practice genuine altruism?

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion. I have never heard of any form of atheist ethics that doesn’t rely on selfishness or self-interest.

I don't think that I have ever heard any form of theist ethics that doesn't rely on self-interest. "God loves you, therefore obey God. " "Store up your treasure in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy. " "Make sure that you are with the sheep not the goats."

My own ethical principles, derived from the demonstrable fact of our common humanity, is called humanism. Can you show me how this is any more self-serving than theist morals?

Atheists are certainly capable of showing genuine love or practicing genuine altruism, but if we are looking for a basis for morality – a reason for showing love or altruism – then within atheism somehow it must be good for me.

Theists are certainly capable of showing genuine love or practicing genuine altruism, but if we are looking for a basis for morality – a reason for showing love or altruism – then within theism somehow it must be good for me, in the eternal, spiritual or heavenly sense.

[bjs]

OK, good. So you are not from the "God said it, I believe it" school of theology. However, if ethics are based on the authority of God, your starting place requires no more complex than a determination of whether this or that particular text is from God. Not wanting to minimize the complexity and thoughtfulness of what comes next, still from where I sit, the starting point is both wrong and often poorly understood or examined by believers. Wrong because it is arbitrary. Xxxxxx is not wrong because it is intrinsically so, it is wrong because the revelation from God says that it is.

I don’t agree that relying on the authority of God makes morality arbitrary. If God is revealing what is intrinsically right or wrong then we are relying on the authority of God for revelation while morality remains intrinsic. If God is declaring what is right or wrong then God, as the Creator of all that is, has that right – He created the world, He wrote the laws of science, He can prescribe morality. To use a crass analogy – He made the game so God, and only God, can decide the rules.

Poorly understood in that very few Christians in my experience can produce a convincing answer to the question, "Why do you believe that the Bible is from God?" Poorly examined, in that very few Christians have a knowledge of the history of how the Bible came to be.

I agree that many Christians do not know why they believe the Bible comes from God or know the history of the Bible. This does not remove the Bible as an authority of ethics any more than not knowing why the speed limit is 55 would mean that there is no speed limit. Most people, both theist and non-theist, do not think about why they believe what they believe. This does not mean that their beliefs are wrong, just that the subtleties and reasons have not been thought out.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

Keep away from food sacrificed to idols, obey your masters even when they are unjust, short hair for men, long hair for women, sell your possessions, ...

In the past you have demonstrated enough understanding of Christianity that I think you know that you have oversimplified things.

For instance, Paul did not say to keep away from food sacrificed to idols. He said that if your brother believes that eating food sacrificed to idols is idolatry then don’t eat it. The food is fine, but don’t do anything that would harm your brother's conscience. The command is for kindness and mercy to a less mature brother – the food sacrificed to idols was just a circumstance to bring out that kindness and mercy.

How do you jump to this conclusion? Cannot atheists have genuine love or practice genuine altruism?

I don’t think that I am jumping to a conclusion. I have never heard of any form of atheist ethics that doesn’t rely on selfishness or self-interest.

I don't think that I have ever heard any form of theist ethics that doesn't rely on self-interest. "God loves you, therefore obey God. " "Store up your treasure in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy. " "Make sure that you are with the sheep not the goats."

Theists are certainly capable of showing genuine love or practicing genuine altruism, but if we are looking for a basis for morality – a reason for showing love or altruism – then within theism somehow it must be good for me, in the eternal, spiritual or heavenly sense.

I don’t deny that Christianity includes rewards for righteousness and punishment for wickedness. However, that is not the basis for morality. The basis for morality – the reason I believe it is right or wrong – is the authority of God. Some people might avoid evil because of fear of punishment or seek good because of a desire for reward, but the basis for establishing good and evil is God’s authority.

My own ethical principles, derived from the demonstrable fact of our common humanity, is called humanism. Can you show me how this is any more self-serving than theist morals?

Humanism is a system of ethics, not a basis for ethics.

Humanism and Christian ethics are similar in most ways. If someone is not a Christian then I think Humanism is a fine ethical system (though personally I am more partial to Kant’s approach). But what is the basis for humanism? What is the reason that, “Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations�?

[Goat]

OK, good. So you are not from the "God said it, I believe it" school of theology. However, if ethics are based on the authority of God, your starting place requires no more complex than a determination of whether this or that particular text is from God. Not wanting to minimize the complexity and thoughtfulness of what comes next, still from where I sit, the starting point is both wrong and often poorly understood or examined by believers. Wrong because it is arbitrary. Xxxxxx is not wrong because it is intrinsically so, it is wrong because the revelation from God says that it is.

I don’t agree that relying on the authority of God makes morality arbitrary. If God is revealing what is intrinsically right or wrong then we are relying on the authority of God for revelation while morality remains intrinsic. If God is declaring what is right or wrong then God, as the Creator of all that is, has that right – He created the world, He wrote the laws of science, He can prescribe morality. To use a crass analogy – He made the game so God, and only God, can decide the rules.

The big thing is there is NO way that you can say that any particular piece of morality is 'from God'. That is why there are so many variations of morality , even among those people who claim there is an objective morality being dictated by God.

So, since you have no way to demonstrate that any piece of morality comes from God, then anything you claim to be from God is subjective and relative.

[Grumpy]

bjs

I don’t agree that relying on the authority of God makes morality arbitrary. If God is revealing what is intrinsically right or wrong then we are relying on the authority of God for revelation while morality remains intrinsic. If God is declaring what is right or wrong then God, as the Creator of all that is, has that right – He created the world, He wrote the laws of science, He can prescribe morality. To use a crass analogy – He made the game so God, and only God, can decide the rules.

The point is, you cannot show any reason at all to think that what you(or anyone else)say(s) your god wants is any more accurate than guessing. You can not even give any reason to think that your god even exists.

I agree that many Christians do not know why they believe the Bible comes from God or know the history of the Bible. This does not remove the Bible as an authority of ethics any more than not knowing why the speed limit is 55 would mean that there is no speed limit.

The thing is, there are no speed limit signs put up by god, all of the signs are put up by men. Now those men can SAY their god told them to put up those signs, but is that something they can show to be true? No.

Most people, both theist and non-theist, do not think about why they believe what they believe. This does not mean that their beliefs are wrong, just that the subtleties and reasons have not been thought out.

I'm sorry, that is just not true, especially for those who reject the majority opinions of their society, never an easy or comfortable thing to do. Personally, it was a lot of thinking that led me to reject supernaturalism. Not thinking about it is much more likely to get you to go with the flow just to fit in with your peers. If you live in a Christian society you are likely to be Christian, a Muslim society, Muslim. This requires little thought.

Within Christianity, God has given us the principles of morality that He desires from us (love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and your mother, etc.), and calls us, under the guide of the Spirit, to work out those principles in the complexities of daily life.

No, he hasn't. You have been TOLD that he has, but there is no reason to think that is accurate.

I don’t deny that Christianity includes rewards for righteousness and punishment for wickedness. However, that is not the basis for morality. The basis for morality – the reason I believe it is right or wrong – is the authority of God. Some people might avoid evil because of fear of punishment or seek good because of a desire for reward, but the basis for establishing good and evil is God’s authority.

I don't think I need to point out that this statement has no basis in fact. Fear of personal loss is the mainstay of almost all religion. Atheists do not fear punishment after death, we know that those who are evil in this lifetime will not be punished unless we as a society do that punishment.

Humanism is a system of ethics, not a basis for ethics.

Religions are systems of morals, they are not the source of those morals. As another thread has explored, religion is neither right or wrong, it is empty.

But what is the basis for humanism? What is the reason that, “Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations�?

Enlightened self interest. I prefer to live in a peaceful, just world and use my intellect to try to produce such a world, thus Humanism.

Grumpy

[LittlePig]

I don’t agree that relying on the authority of God makes morality arbitrary. If God is revealing what is intrinsically right or wrong then we are relying on the authority of God for revelation while morality remains intrinsic. If God is declaring what is right or wrong then God, as the Creator of all that is, has that right – He created the world, He wrote the laws of science, He can prescribe morality. To use a crass analogy – He made the game so God, and only God, can decide the rules.

You seem to be saying 2 different things here.

1. God is revealing non-arbitrary morality intrinsic to some larger system.
2. God is prescribing its desired morality because it can.

If morality is sourced in God's nature/desires, that's pretty much the definition of arbitrary.

Humanism is a system of ethics, not a basis for ethics.

Humanism and Christian ethics are similar in most ways. If someone is not a Christian then I think Humanism is a fine ethical system (though personally I am more partial to Kant’s approach). But what is the basis for humanism? What is the reason that, “Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations�?

The basis for any ethical system is always the same. Desire. The criteria of ethical systems varies contingent on its desire/objectives.

The basis of your ethical system is that you desire to do what God desires of you. That makes God's desires your criteria. Left unanswered is the question of why your desire is what it is. (Feel free to answer it.)

The desires that form the basis of secular humanism are broadly the promotion of human life and fulfillment. It's pretty obvious why that is desired. The criteria of this system are reasonableness and outcomes.