Is it possible to have objective morality without God?

[Manturkey]

discuss.

[MN_FriendlyGuy]

[color=blue]According to Jonathan Haidt (Five Foundational Moral Impulses), yes. And I believe I share his viewpoint.

Of course "Purity/Sanctity" is one of the five moral impulses. That's the one that comes closest to theism.

But even in the absence of deity or the absence of religion it's definitely possible to understand the morality of:
[list]- Respect for authority
- Loyalty and allegiance
- Being fair to others / pursuing justice for others
- Caring for others / to avoid doing harm[/list:u]Is it possible to have objective morality without deity? Easily.[/color]

[sarnoga]

I know I'm going to regret this.....

Is it Possible to have objective morality without God?

Absolutely not.

Is it possible to have objective morality with God?

Absolutely not.

Morality is always subjective and neither the presence nor absence of God can change that.


Sarnoga.

[stephiebaby]

"Is it possible to have objective morality without God?"

Morality of any kind already exists without gods as we create both morality and gods.

[VeryGnawty]

[quote="sarnoga":/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i223591b]
Is it Possible to have objective morality without God?

Absolutely not.

Is it possible to have objective morality with God?

Absolutely not.[/quote:/\[url=(https?:\/\/[^\s\[]+):$uid\](.*?)\[\/url:$uid\]/i223591b]

Agreed. Morality is a value judgment. Like all value judgments, it is always subjective.

[Madeira]

I believe that there are two pretty objective moral tenants:
1. Do not do to others as you would not have done to you
so don't punch people, don't steal, don't smash other people's windows unless they ask you to. You also have a right to defend yourself from other people's actions, but only in a way proportional to their potential injury to you (no killing someone for punching you, or punching them for insulting you)

2. Do unto others as you would have done unto you (this one is slightly more situational)
this rule applies if the situation comes up and you can do it without great harm/risk to yourself, for example if you come across a drowning man in a river and there's a rope, then you are obligated to toss him the rope, if it's a raging river and you might drown and there is no rope you are not obligated to jump in to try to save him, but you are obligated to run for help or call for help or try and do something.


I think that to say morality is subjective is to make morality a bit useless frankly, and I believe my system of morality is based on the idea that to an extent all human life has value, and to assume your are worth more than other people is a value judgement, and as well I think that in the long run acting kindly and compassionately towards one's fellow human beings is better for society on a large scale and thus morality is practical.

[Thrideye]

No God is but a creation of mans need to explain the unexplainable. Morality is then made by so called "priests" who have been guided to teach the lords wishes and that tends to be filled with lies and propaganda.

I believe in the afterlife, but organized religion isn't my cup of tea though I grew up Catholic so I cannot say it hasn't shaped me into the person I am today, my morals and my vices.

[stephiebaby]

"I think that to say morality is subjective is to make morality a bit useless frankly"

Yes, and morality is completely useless. Morality is what one uses to justify ones actions, whatever they may be. Most pedophiles would consider themselves fine moral citizens who love children. Plenty of racists would consider themselves to be moral, and doing gods work, same as homophobes. In the bible morality is throwing all males off the city walls when you conquer a people, along with any woman who has known a man, and keeping the virgins as slave wives. Morality is whatever we want it to be, with a big stamp of approval from the current god. Laws and ethics are much better as they are developed by societies and can change with the times and new knowledge. It's like they say in "Dogma", it's better to have a good idea than a belief, you can change ideas but people will kill to defend their beliefs. Morality is belief enforced ehtics.

"I believe my system of morality is based on the idea that to an extent all human life has value, and to assume your are worth more than other people is a value judgement, and as well I think that in the long run acting kindly and compassionately towards one's fellow human beings is better for society on a large scale and thus morality is practical."

You are only considering you view of morality, and assuming it covers everyone.
But the whole don't steal, don't kill, do unto others idea has nothing to do with morality or gods, it is self preservation and social functioning, nothing more. If we have rules which say don't kill, then there is a reduced chance that someone will walk up to you and kill you. Self preservation, and with this security one is free to work, trade and live.

[phryne]

"Are things good because the gods love them, or do the gods love that which is good?"
-Socrates

Of course morality can be objective without god. Objective morality means a moral assertion has a truth value of true or false. We don't need a god to know that slavery, murder, and harming others is wrong. If someone says those things are good, they are incorrect.

I wish I saw this thread before posting in the flamed out one on morality, but here is a couple videos that answer this question. the first is less than a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqFwree7Kak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww[/url]

[mindphuk]

God(s) was(were) invented for two reasons.

1st (and I really think this is the 1st reason): Glue a society together with giving a concept of moral stressed by fear of what might happen after-life.
2nd: Explain the unexplainable, like Thrideye said, because men always were trying to understand what's happening and why.

But... then there was enlightment. It was the idea of people like Kant, that there is only one basic rational law - The Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." - or in other clear words: "Do what you want as long as it still allows the one next to you to enjoy exactly the same freedom." This is, in my eyes, the most compressed and down to the core law ever created.
There is no need for God and fear of doom, if people could just follow this simplest and shortest rule.

With the further development of science, God moved more and more far away from us. First he was just in heaven above us. Then we explored heaven and didn't meet him there, so he now moved far away and now hides in a dusty, methaphysical and unexplainable continuum.
So what if there is really no God (what I believe). At least no God in the means of an intelligent entity that watches over us... then there is no reason for morality, but if people act just pure logical and rational. This would mean, they follow the Categorical Imperative, the most pure freedom.

[inferiorwoman]

Agrees with Sarnoga.

As for living a decent life with a moral code, yes it's possible without god. It's called Humanism

[HypnoCactus]

Morality, I feel, can be objective if using Rawl's "veil of ignorance" to reduce everyone to the same original position, negating any impact on your morality and sense of justice that any factors might otherwise have impacted. Developing from the unknown a mentality and morality that is fair to everyone regardless of what/who/where is the objective aspect. And all this can be yours for 3 easy payments of $9.99 (no gods need apply).

[BiffWallop]

You don't need God, Philosophy, or even a code of ethics to be moral. Morality is doing, the words are a reaction to it. It's all objective. That's my subjective opinion.

[Plaat]

I'm liking the comments on this thread but in case you guys want some ammo, and something to think about, look in The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, I just finished it and gives great arguments for why: morality is objective, how when can investigate this morality, and the idea that the division between facts and values is an illusion. This book, and others, can break though the clutter of postmodern thinking which may have brought us here. For example, How is a value judgement subjective?! If jack 3 apples and jim has 5 apples, Can anyone find a way to explain how 5>3 is an opinion? Morals/ethics can be a measure of suffering vs benefits, similar to the apples.

[Icono]

Empathy is all that's required. I've heard some theists claim that if they didn't believe in a divine punishment and reward system they'd do whatever they want regardless of the harm. I don't think that's a flattering admission, and they should mind their solipsism ;)

[oraprog]

[quote="BiffWallop"]You don't need God, Philosophy, or even a code of ethics to be moral. Morality is doing, the words are a reaction to it. It's all objective. That's my subjective opinion.[/quote]

Sorry, but this is complete sophistry.

Morality is adhesion to a code of ethics, IMO, adhesion to a code of ethics commonly developed by society. Anything that is not commonly accepted by society becomes immoral - such as polygamy.

Does that make society's morals right? By definition, yes. But one of the great things about freedom (the United States at least), you aren't bound by society's moral code.

[sarnoga]

[quote="oraprog"] But one of the great things about freedom (the United States at least), you aren't bound by society's moral code.[/quote]

No? What about all the thousands of people sent to prison every year because they did not conform their behavior to societies morals? The United States wouldn't recognize freedom if it came up and bit it's balls off.

Perhaps Kris Kristofferson was right when he penned the words... "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Sarnoga

[akwalpurgisnacht]

What kind of morality are we talking about? Normative, or Descriptive?
If normative, Deontological or Consequentialist?
Humanist?
Kantian?
Utilitarian?
Hedonistic?
Nihilistic?

I myself tend towards consequentialisim, in which the consequences of your action determines its morality, rather than your intentions or whether or not it breaks a rule.
Consequentialisim can exist in the absence of a Deity, as judgement of an action's morality is Ex Post Facto, and thus can be determined by human beings.

[Tangy]

[quote="Icono"]Empathy is all that's required. I've heard some theists claim that if they didn't believe in a divine punishment and reward system they'd do whatever they want regardless of the harm. I don't think that's a flattering admission, and they should mind their solipsism ;)[/quote]

How can you leave out the creator on anything We Do?

[ZoeHelena]

"Is it possible to have objective morality without God?"

The question implies the presumption of an objective concept of Divinity.

The proliferation of religious concepts on this planet undermines that entire point of departure.

But to attempt an answer to this unanswerable question: I'll return to a puerile point in my psychological development where, as a deist who didn't even know the term deism existed, I postulated a position from which objective morality could be derived from a combination of human desires and aspirations interfaced with logic.

The result was, essentially, the Golden Rule.

Of course, at that time I didn't conceive of the presence of natural-born psychopaths in the world.

I was such an idealist in fourth grade... *sigh*

[wolfnchains]

I don't think the practice of morality can be objective, regardless of a belief in any deity. Morality stems from an association of self with other. It concerns not only an attempt at personal preservation, but also mutual preservation. In this, the practice of morality at its core can stir all forms of personal fears and biases. Because we are touching a necessity that correlates with our survival, born in the days of our ancestors when they came together to form society to increase their odds.

Furthermore, the height of our ability to self actualize, the most mature state our psychological minds can reach, leads us to step beyond the laws and precepts of a given authority, whether that be man or god, and to establish a law and an authority within our selves, founded not on black and right legalism but based on our ability to see the other as our own, or even more accurately, as us. When I see that we are connected, that my blood flows in your veins, that what happens to you happens to me, that is the point when morality becomes organic and enlightened. And there is nothing objective about it. It becomes deeply personal, stemming from who we are.

[OxyFemboi]

[quote]Is it possible to have objective morality without God?[/quote]

Let's define some terms.

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
~~ from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
[Note: bold emphasis is in the original document]

According to this, it is not only possible to have morality without God, God does not even enter into "morality". Whichever God(s) you wish to follow establishes the principles upon which his/her/their code of ethics is based; you establish your own moral code which, even if it does refer to an eternal "rule book" (which usually needs interpretation), is necessarily subjective.

One example of the need for interpretation is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill.". In the original Hebrew, the word "kill" used in the King James Version of the Bible is the Hebrew word for "murder". Thus, self-defense is allowed.

Since we need courts to decide whether a murder was actually committed [and how heinous it was: first-, second- or third-degree murder, justifiable homicide, accidental, death by misadventure or self-defense ... I watch a lot of detective shows], the commandment/rule needs a lot of interpretation, so subjectivity is required even in such an obviously unambiguous, straightforward rule.

[Glasnerven]

I used to believe in an objective morality, but after thinking about it in more depth, I've come to realize that there isn't any good justification for that. Morality come from us, based on traits we evolved as social organisms, like empathy and reciprocity and a certain level of collectivism. Obviously, none of this requires any gods.

If the question is more specific, "can we be moral without Yaweh, the God of Abraham?" then it's not just a yes but a "hell yes!" If you look past what people say and write about the character, and look at what he's depicted as DOING in the works about him, you'll find that he's a jealous, cruel, petty, megalomaniacal, murderous dictator with few redeeming features.

[groggog]

I would say that it is impossible to have objective morality if you believe in God. A believer might think their morality is objective but they are wrong.

Moral relativism is of course a dead-end and meaningless to argue for. Those who argue for moral relativism don't intend it for themselves - they usually spread the gospel of moral relativism to degrade others, while imposing their real beliefs through their actions.

The notion of a God is wrong in of itself, but I've found that most people who profess atheism really just believe in their own false Gods, whether they are aware of it or not. For anyone who truly disavows God, the concept of subjective morality should be automatically rejected as an abomination.