Can Morality Exist Without God?
- Thread starter fiicere
- Start date
Clarify.
Say I don't believe God exists. Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?
Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught, is there any reason I shouldn't short of "It's not right?" And, can one say "That's not right," without an absolute moral system?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, you know atheists exist don't you ?
Yes.
And I know atheists who don't believe in any morality whatsoever, and I know atheists who do. I am curious as to how the former think the world should function and how the latter justify that belief.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
Because if I harm someone, I'm wrong and he suffers. This thing makes me feel bad... It's called empathy. We are better than theists here, because some of them do the right thing only for personal interest.
Ah.
I'm not being clear.
Pretend I'm an athiest. What stops me from saying "You know this empathy stuff? That's total BS, there's no reason I should be nice to other people?"
My question was not on mechanics "what causes morality" (in this case, evolution, as Enmos pointed out). My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so.
Can people who believe in a God me immoral? Of course they can and are.
Last edited:
Well apart from laws and the punishments which enforce them, people are generally ethical and moral. People recognize that society (which includes them) benefits when people are altruistic or at least respectful of others.
What is a concern is that some religious people think that the fear of one of the many sky gods is the only thing stopping them from killing their neighbors and stealing their stuff.
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
Philosophy... The fact that someone suffers because of your actions. Without philosophy, nothing could prevent an atheist man from doing bad actions except law. Besides, a good theist would be a good atheist, and a bad theist would be a bad atheist. Religion or not, the man is the man.
So, human nature?
Some people are altruistic and some are not? And will be that way regardless of beliefs?
I don't really buy that. I know I for one try a lot harder since I converted. Although that's anecdotal evidence.
Because presumably you want to live in a society with other people. Of necessity, that requires that you respect certain interests that other people have. If you do not, you will quickly find yourself ostracised.
Also, cooperative behaviour is often mutually beneficial to all parties involved. If you choose to opt out of accepted moral codes, you'll quickly find that people won't want to associate with you, and you will suffer as a result.
In short, it is in your own interests, if for no other reason, to act morally.
Yes. Take Kant's categorical imperative, for example. Would you advocate a general rule for all people of "steal money whenever you can if you think you won't get caught"? If you wouldn't advocate such a general rule, then I would suggest that your advocating that rule of behaviour for yourself is, at the very least, self-serving and inconsistent.
What do you mean by "absolute"?
The kinds of reasons I've given above, for a start.
Of course yes .
The best example is given by the humanists and the pacifists who do a superb human work .
OK, so the primary motivation for morality is to fit in with society? Morality can only be trusted if someone is keeping an eye on it?
Society is not always mutually beneficial. Take people with down's syndrome, for example. Since they do not contribute to society, shouldn't they be euthanized? Or the elderly?
Well, I think the topic is going somewhere. But you see, I'm not trying to peddle some worldwide philosophy.
The hypothetical me who lives in a world with no morality is wondering if there is any real reason not to steal and not get caught? Why should I care about being consistent, or not self-serving?
There's the real question. Are there any purely logical/practical motivations for morality or a certain code of ethics? Or is morality just a vague set of philosophical rules that people follow more from convention and habit than for any actual purpose?
Please Elaborate. My question is WHY the humanists and pacifists feel the need to do such superb work. NOT what evolutionary processes led them to favor humanitarian work, what is their thought process?
What is the rationale behind non-religious morality?
I would say that that is the only way to have a reasonable morality.
fiicere,
Atheists are exactly the same except that don't expect to be rescued.
The reasoning behind what is good and bad is shared among theists and atheists alike, with the main exception that atheists are able to figure it out for themselves but the theists depend on rules set some 1 or 2 millenia years ago for past ignorant societies.
But believing there is a god makes no difference. All Christians for example are all immoral, they are specifically told they are all sinners, that's why they have a savior they expect to come rescue them.
Atheists are exactly the same except that don't expect to be rescued.
The reasoning behind what is good and bad is shared among theists and atheists alike, with the main exception that atheists are able to figure it out for themselves but the theists depend on rules set some 1 or 2 millenia years ago for past ignorant societies.