Morals without God?

As said before, morals do not derive necessarily from religion itself, but more stems from society. In order to have any kind of functioning group of an intelligent species, a list of what is wrong or right has to spring up at some point. There are many species besides humans that already have a set moral code, i doubt if there is a higher power he would bestow all these moral codes among animals like chimps and ants.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

People didn't necessarily fear God in the past, there have been so many psychopatic killers who have no fear, and even if some of them feared death it's not necessarily because they fear that a God would judge them. I don't fear a higher power in the slightest, and I certainly don't think everyone should.

I'm certainly not going to thank religion for my morals.

hartsickdiscipl

Psychopathic killers are the exception, not the rule. There are plenty of people who claim to fear God and adhere to the rules of their religion, but really don't. That's not the issue. The issue is that some people seem to think that they were born pre-programmed with some moral standards. That's absurd. There are way too many variances in what's considered moral or immoral in different parts of the world for this to be true.

I bet the first humans could very well be considered psychopaths in many areas and certainly didn't have strong morals for the most part.

I didn't see anyone claiming that people were programmed to have good morals, and quite frankly I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. Of course genetics have a role to play with some parts of what can be considered "morality" just like a lot of things.

It seems that we don't even agree that science and reasoning are not theist constructs, so it's unlikely we'll ever come to an agreement.

It's almost 3 and I have classes in the morning, so I'm going to stop, but it's been a really interesting discussion! I'm glad we posted in this thread :)

[QUOTE="yabbicoke"]I'm atheist and I'm not an immoral person. I mean sure, some people may frown on that fact that once in awhile I kill someone with an axe to relieve a little stress. But come on, we have no souls anyway, so what's the difference, am I right?hartsickdiscipl

:lol: Everybody needs to take out somebody with an axe every once in awhile.

But seriously.. Where do you think you got your idea of morality from? Where do you think your influences got theirs from?

It's not very scientific to think that humans come "pre-programmed" with the same sense of morality. All you have to do is look at cultures where moral standards are so drastically different from each other to prove that this can't be true. We get our sense of morality from those around us, who have inevitably gotten their sense of morality from the world around them. The world which has always had religions that teach morality since the start of recorded history.

I do not completely disagree with you in that some morals have been derived from some religion or other. But, I think it is just as plausible that some morals do not come from a belief of a higher being or divine punishment. For example: not killing others. It's pretty much accepted that pre-modern man depended on others of it's group for survival. Killing other members of your family or group would be detrimental to your own survival. This could be the origins of things that are taboo or unacceptable. not from religion, but from the inherant drive to survive that all living things posses.

Actually, one last thought:

It's interesting to examine "moral actions" in other species as a counterpoint to the assertion that morality requires theism. I know incredibly little about the subject on, say, how intelligent apes act in their society. If an ape can perform a moral action, then it seems that theism is not a requirement, but then, we would have to strictly define what constitutes a moral action, and then prove that the action was not a result of mere instinct or habit (if we agreed that instinctual and habitual actions cannot be moral, that is.)

But yeah it's late blah blah going to bed good night

Actually, one last thought:

It's interesting to examine "moral actions" in other species as a counterpoint to the assertion that morality requires theism. I know incredibly little about the subject on, say, how intelligent apes act in their society. If an ape can perform a moral action, then it seems that theism is not a requirement, but then, we would have to strictly define what constitutes a moral action, and then prove that the action was not a result of mere instinct or habit (if we agreed that instinctual and habitual actions cannot be moral, that is.)

But yeah it's late blah blah going to bed good night

TreebucketLumi

I don't agree that morals come only with religion. But I do agree that morals are not complete without religion.GazaAli

I don't have "morals", and neither have you.Neon-Tiger

I don't agree that morals come only with religion. But I do agree that morals are not complete without religion.GazaAli

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

The Moral Argument asserts that those who don't believe in God CAN be moral. To say otherwise, would be an argument against religion.

hartsickdiscipl

I think the question then has to be- Where did they get their morals from? From parents who believe in God? From a society that has always had far more believers in God than Atheists? If so, don't they have to give some of the credit for their morals to the very idea of God in the first place?

This goes back to the question that I posed earlier. Has there ever been a time in recorded human history without religion? I think not. So then to say that morals formed without religion and a belief in God, makes no sense. :)

Atheistic morality is far to subjective for my tastes.Acemaster27

There are a lot of different factors that can lead to someone's sense of morality. Fear of retribution can be a big one - and I would place both laws and religion into this category. Part of me feels that it's unfortunate that so many people base their behavior not on any sort of intrinsic need to do good, but instead choose how to act because of promises of rewards or punishments (divine or otherwise). At the same time, part of me acknowledges that this is necessary for some people. If laws and religion are all that's holding a person back from going on a killing spree then, yeah, they probably aren't exactly a good person at heart, but I'm glad that at least there's something to keep them in line. Of course, this whole thing can be a double-edged sword. Because if laws and religion are what dictates someone's behavior, then if the laws and religions are themselves immoral...well...you're pretty much screwed.

Societal norms can be a very heavy influence on what people consider right and wrong. Someone may not be worrying about the divine or legal ramifications of their actions, but instead simply be mimicking and/or adhering to the sorts of behaviors they were raised to believe is normal. (Of course, what is considered normal behavior can be heavily influenced by religion - if not directly than historically. But, whatever.) Part of me feels that this is unfortunate as well, because, again, people are behaving not based on their own inherent feelings of right and wrong, but based on what others tell them is right and wrong. And, again, this can actually be necessary for certain people to behave morally. And, again, this can also be a bad thing, because if normal behavior in a society itself is immoral, you're going to have people who go around thinking that it's okay to act in ways that are unethical.

Personally, while I think that morality is inherently subjective, I do believe that there are some things that are so very much right or wrong that that the morality associated with them transcends religion, laws, social norms, or any other external influences. I'm not saying I'm above these influences, nor am I saying that everyone who believes in a higher morality is going to share my view of it. That said, when I decide what to do I don't think about what God would want. I think about what I believe is right. So...while religion can be very influential to establishing a moral code, I certainly don't think it's necessary.

You don't have to believe in God to see that Christianity is the best framework for peace and prosperity.kdawg88

Which "Christianity"? The "Christianity" of the entirety of the Bible, the C. of the New Testament, the "mainstream" Christianity... (Catholicism, Orthodox)? Which one?

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

You don't need Christianity, there are older religions out there.

http://www.asatru.org/havamal.html

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

super_mario_128

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]I don't agree that morals come only with religion. But I do agree that morals are not complete without religion.Sajo7

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]Many laws are based on the laws a God of some sort or another set forth..look at Americas laws...they have foundations in the judeo-christian set of beliefs..and many other countries as well..religion is a part of humanity..hence the laws mandated reflect the morals set forth by a God..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Theists will tell you that life is like a board game. It was created by God and it is through him that he gives the rules by which we play by. Of course, the game doesn't have to be played that way but it probably won't be exciting if the rules are ignored, just like life won't be as good if you don't live by God's commandments.

The problem with that metaphor is that every holy book, which should be considered the rulebook for the game, is flawed, or at least the holy books I'm familiar with. Additionally, they contradict each other, so they can't all be right, just like you can't play a game by all variations of it at the same time. Instead, it appears that people have claimed to have a word with the creator of the game and therefore, they have the most recent update on how the game is being played. However, their variation of the game isn't as fun as it could be just like religion isn't as good as it can be.

Basically, we don't have rules for the game or the "rules" we do have aren't of the creator's, even though our religions claim to be from God or from other divine source. We have to have an adaptive purpose. We have to bend the game for it to be exciting to us in a way that doesn't do us any harm to us that we don't do to ourselves. That's the game and that's how we should play it.

Of course, my metaphor assumes there is a creator of the board game, but my metaphor does not translate to life completely, as it leaves out the creator of the universe. Furthermore, another problem with my metaphor is that even if there was a God that had laid down the rules for the game, they wouldn't necessarily be the most exciting way to play the game in the same sense that morality with God wouldn't be complete. In fact, God could easily make the game where it was very undesirable to play in the same way that leaving morality up to God can be a very bad thing in the event that he acts much like the God of the Qur'an or the Old Testament.

At first glance, it seems that morality can only be complete with God, but when you really think about it, it seems that it's the other way around. Morality can only be complete without God as an adaptation of nature discovered by man and lived with man's best in mind, not as a by-product of God's imperfect design.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]I don't agree that morals come only with religion. But I do agree that morals are not complete without religion.Sajo7

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Guess what inspired many laws?...Xx_Hopeless_xX

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25:44-46&version=NIV

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Those are some fine morals.

Reasoning alone won't get you there, IMO. It takes a fear of a higher power. Having such a fear should (but doesn't always) cause people to be more strict on themselves in their decision-making.

Since we know that religion has been around as long as recorded human history, and that morality lessons are almost always part of religious teachings, it's logical to think that the very concept of morality came from the fear of God. From the idea that it doesn't matter if I can be caught and/or punished by humans for what I'm about to do, but that I am accountable to a higher power who can see everything I do.

Unless you can show me a separate society that has developed with basically compatible moral standards to those that are common in our religiously-dominated world, and has done so without the belief in and worship of a God, there is no basis for saying that morality is based solely on reasoning.

hartsickdiscipl

Firstly, I disagree with the idea that morals can work when based off of fear. That just sounds like coercion to me, and doing good deeds in that case wouldn't necessarily be moral - it'd just be self-serving, or 'avoiding punishment by looking busy'.

Anyway, you might be right that religion is as old as humanity (we can't be sure), but both religion and humanity had to start from somewhere - they didn't just magically appear the moment our species became higher-conscious beings. In that case, religion and morals may just be a product of evolution - we can see animals in the wild cooperating in societies, yet they don't have any identifiable religions, so perhaps our sense of morality is derived from that tradition.

I'm not sure if I agree with that myself though. I like Roy Rappaport's idea in his last book, where he (very, very) basically says that religious rituals do necessarily instill a sense of morality in societies (one that's essential for their survival), and yet their ability to do so is derived entirely from the special properties of language and ritual, and not (or hardly at all) from the way they're attached to deities and spirits and whatnot.

I guess the shorthand version is that language, universal in humans, is the source of religion/the sacred and morality, and that we wouldn't be around without any of them...although I don't entirely agree with the idea that societies/language couldn't exist without it.

*edit* Sorry if that made no sense - my 2am rambles usually don't.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Guess what inspired many laws?...Xx_Hopeless_xX

I'll take that one step further back. Since man created gods and religion, then the morals and rules within any religion were based off of the values of man. So, the morals that people say come from religion really come from man to begin with.

Morals are subjective. Even with religion they are subjective.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

What?..You mean like not killing people?...That's not innate..people always want to kill one another and probably would without laws prohibiting it..

Just look at our ancestors..before established cvilizations they killed one another for things such as fire and food..that's what happens when there's nothing to guide our morals..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

If it wasnt something divine, then religion and religious morals are human creations in which case (and in that sense) they are not much different than laws.

Morals and laws arose from society, as they are necessary for a functioning society. In our need to imagine something higher than ourselves, and out of our fear of death, we created gods. We then decreed that our gods had dictated the law to us.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]I don't agree that morals come only with religion. But I do agree that morals are not complete without religion.wstfld

no, my morals, they're not completed :(

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Sajo7"] What on earth is are complete morals?TreebucketLumi

no, my morals, they're not completed :(

Too much man-meat on Friday nights during lent?wstfld

well it doesn't HAVE to be during lent ;)

edit: or on fridays

edit 2: or at night

Religion takes morals to the extreme because a lot of people fear being judged by a higher power. Morals can come from a lot of things, but I would never base my morals on religion.

how hard is it not to be an --- hole to other people? why do we need a higher power to tell us not to do that??comp_atkins

But some other morals can't but justified from the human point of view and sound completely logical and legit, like for example accepting a free laptop that I got by mistake. Since we stealing from the evil corporate, then sure why not?GazaAli

Why not? Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. Even if it was worse than that, nobody is perfect. You can regret a lot of things. I don't see how religion has anything to do with that.

In short, I think my religion guarantee a level of morals that is not reachable by human morality.GazaAli

Religion does not guarantee anything, it puts people into a state of fear. That's not what I call morals.