Morality without god
- Thread starter Sock puppet path
- Start date
This is all beside the point. I am not making the claim that morality definitely isn't contingent upon God. I am simply pointing out that no-one here has demonstrated that it definitely is.
And again, unless you can demonstrate that theism itself is contingent upon an actually existing God, any arguments about the effect that theistic based morality has on secular morality doesn't translate into an effect that God has on morality.
It's exactly like saying that unless you can demonstrate that theism is contingent upon an actually existing God, you can't use the fact that theistic morality has an effect on secular morality to say that morality is contingent upon an actually existing God.
So you mean that LG's reasoning went:
There is God.
God authored theistic morality and gave it to people.
Theistic morality is contingent on God.
Because theistic morality is contingent on God, theistic morality has an effect on secular morality.
If theistic morality would not be contingent on God, theistic morality would not have an effect on secular morality.
- ?
And that in order to prove that secular morality was influenced by theistic morality, we need to prove that God exists? And without proof of God's existence, we can't say that secular morality is influenced by theistic morality?
Actually, it's quite obvious that theistic morality has had and still is having an effect on secular morality. But in order to use that fact to demonstrate that morality is contingent upon God, one has to demonstrate that theism itself is contingent upon (an actually existing) God.
I can only really speak for myself, but I would assume it means that morality can be derived simply from a consideration of who and what we collectively are. In other words, that God is not necessary for there to be a basis for morality.
First of all, so that we can have morality, we need to have a Universe, and one that functions by principles / laws, so that there is regularity; then we need living beings with a moral sense; and these beings need to be able to interact and reflect on their interactions.
Where do you get all these things, if not from God?
Where do you get all these things, if not from God?
Make a list of all the qualities that you think God has (in your head is fine). Now, where do you get all those things, if not from somewhere, or something, else?
Of course, that will seem like an error of logic to you, since God is defined as being the source of all things. But once you permit the introduction of features such as brute force necessary existence, you have to explain why they can be logically assigned to a personal entity and not an impersonal one.
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense.
So you don't think the number jews dying in german concentration camps bears any correlation to whether the germans are working under the moral agenda that they are or are not the master race (because the germans never really did evidence the claim of their racial superiority)?
lightgigantic:
Acknowledging that there was a historical development of moral philosophy that eventually led to the invention of secular humanism makes no difference to the basic assertion that secular humanism is a non-theistic system of morality.
Acknowledging that there was a historical development of moral philosophy that eventually led to the invention of secular humanism makes no difference to the basic assertion that secular humanism is a non-theistic system of morality.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that history bears that out. Big cities have always felt a need to have legal systems and stout police forces, for pretty much as long as there have been cities, since the times of the Sumerians.
As you suggest, compare that to conditions in small villages and tribal bands, which are typically kind of self-policing. As far as individuals go, there's a lot more social-pressure and a lot less social-anonymity in smaller more tightly-knit groups. In small towns, everyone knows all about who you are and what you're doing.
People are generally a lot better behaved in small towns, but they also encounter fewer opportunities to be creative, unconventional and to chart their own course. That's why twenty-somethings tend to gravitate towards the bright-lights of central-cities, while established older couples with children tend to flow outwards.
How does this equate to moral behavior? There is still plenty of crime in small towns, and some level of police supervision is required. Anyway, crime is not necessarily indicative of immoral behavior. Laws can be unjust, or cover behavior unrelated to moral issues.
I don't see the correlation between anonymity and immoral behavior, either. How is an action moral if it relies upon whether or not anyone's looking? And since when does not having anonymity prevent people from action immorally?