Morality Without God?

[Butterfly]

Then all human moral judgement is built upon nothing and only needs self...

Hitler and the Nazi's were not wrong, then, as getting rid on certain segments of population was built upon treating others as oneself, like removing a cancer because the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

How then is the Islamic oppression of women, children, non-Muslims and imposing Shria law morally wrong when Islamic men think it is in their personal best interest to subjugate all thru means of oppression and removal of due process of law?

There needs to be an outside source to help and aid human beings what right and wrong is. Without this, then we are all oppressed by our own moral subjective best interest of self relativism which only boxes one in a corner one cannot get out of.

You have missed the point again. Hitler was not treating others as he wished to be treated himself. Muslim men are not treating women as they wished to be treated themselves. What you are saying is that people like Hitler, or Muslim men are treating others in a way that best suits their own personal interests, NOT the way they want to be treated themselves...there is a big difference you know.

Having an outside source does nothing as far guiding human beings to know what is right or wrong, especially if the outside source like the Koran tells people to treat others unequally or unfairly. It only give people ammunition with which to keep others in subjugation by telling them that the laws and rules come from a divine source.

Fact is - the absolute fact is this - people do not treat others as they themselves wish to be as this personal of view of this principle is subject to personal change, definition, and taste. Subjective Morality twist the definition of treating others as oneself in various intelligent ways to justify one's point of view.

You are right, many people do not treat others as they wish to be treated, but that does not negate the moral truth of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a universal moral standard that applies to all humans regardless of race, gender or religious persuasion.

Why do you think this is - Our Subjective Morality twisting right and wrong based upon personal self interested alone -that - what's best for me?

What's best for me may not be the best for you - How can you draw a line without an outside perfectly neutral objective source intervening, a mediator, an arbitrator? Would it be the state which can out law your existence at a whim? A group of fallible human beings?

This brings up another point - human beings are not perfect - how do we derive that absolute judgment statement?
-
-
-

People twist the idea of right and wrong to suit their own personal needs, because they are selfish and are only thinking of themselves, that does not denied the principle of the Golden Rule.
Morality can be summed up as follows:

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them.
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong.

From these three points I can derive an absolute judgment statement: "By human standards it is wrong to do bad things to humans."

[PaulSacramento]

Morality is the product of rising consciousness levels, as people increasingly become more and more aware of their own humanity, and realize that the humanity of others is on par with their own.

So, at what point did these conscious levels get reduced or "devolved"?

[PaulSacramento]

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them.
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong.

#2 does NOT flow from #1, sorry and history has shown us this over and over.
Just because I don't like my property stolen, doesn't equal me NOT stealing someone else's if I can.
There is no "fact" that doing bad things to humans is wrong.
Killing 100 to save 100 million would be considered right by many people.

[Icthus]

My point is that morality has everything to do with human existence, and nothing to do with whether or not God exists. Morality does not exist unless self-aware humans exist, regardless of God's existence. If one looks at the universe up until the point of human existence, no such object called "morality" existed, even if you believe God created everything up until that point. Morality is totally dependent upon self conscious agents.

But if God exists, he has everything to do with morality. He is metaphysically ultimate, the greatest possible being, pure existence in itself. All causal forces derive from God. You can't say "If one looks at the universe up until the point of human existence, no such object called "morality" existed, even if you believe God created everything up until that point." because you can't prove that morality didn't exist before humans. The fact that no agents on Earth understand morality doesn't show that it didn't exist. It would be like saying that the laws of physics didn't exist until people existed to discover them. If morality is, as you say, totally dependent upon self conscious agents, then if God exists, he must be the source of morality because he is the first and ultimate self conscious agent, the agent from which all other agents derive their existence. If God exists, morality has existed as long as he has, which was way longer than humanity.

You also seem to be treating the Golden Rule as though it were objectively true, which it isn't. As Paul pointed out, in your chain of logic about the Golden Rule, premise #2 does not follow logically from premise #1. I don't think any serious philosophers have posited that the Golden Rule is a moral fact, and the vast majority believe, rightfully, that objective morals can only exist if God exists. Otherwise it's basically a moral free for all, which many philosophers are comfortable accepting.

[Katabole]

You forgot to include the rest of the statement spoken by Jesus in which he likened the first to the second, and concluded that upon both hung ALL the law and the prophets.

Actually, I didn't forget the second commandment at all. I deliberately left it out. You see if Jesus had said, the first commandment is love your neighbour as yourself and the second is like it, that you should love the Lord you God with all your heart, soul and mind, it changes the meaning of what He is saying. When Jesus says it is "like" it does not mean "it is the same as". This is why the explicit use of the words 'first' and 'second' are so important in this verse. Is that order necessary or only coincidental? Would the commandments have the same significance and work just as well if they were in reverse order? Or could they be treated as independent of each other--in effect simultaneous. I see that as a matter of priority that is critically important.

Many Christians are Christians in name only. Their concept of God is such that it has to be sheer nonsense to talk about a first-commandment "loving him"--with heart, soul, mind, and strength. In the first place, God for them is not a personal being with whom any sort of true love relationship is even conceivable. In the second place, it is wrong even to use personal pronouns in reference to God. But if I may say so, the Bible's First Commandment simply will not translate into: "The universe is permeated by one Principle; and you shall love it (love it?--that principle, idea, concept, model, process, theory?) with all your heart, soul mind, and strength." Of necessity, these folks have to go all out simply with the second-commandment loving of neighbor--because they have no God to whom the first commandment could apply in any case.

Other Christians assume that doing a good job on the second commandment automatically takes care of the first. "The way I give myself in the loving of neighbor is proof enough of how much I love God." Consider that, if doing a good job on commandment two automatically takes care of commandment one, then there is no point at all in the Bible's even giving us commandment one. Simply pushing commandment two would have sufficed for the fulfilling of the whole gospel.

Again, still others take for granted that commandment one has already been cared for, that we have already given God as much love as he should ever expect. And having already done the first commandment as well as we have, that certainly should free us to give our total efforts to commandment two. My own opinion is that the first and greatest commandment is being badly ignored. So, it can happen and has happened that many Christians in all traditions have chosen to begin their Christian life by centering in on the second commandment. Consequently, many have hung up there and never come to the place of doing much about the first commandment.

Now let me tell you how the reverse approach of starting with commandment one has inherent safeguards against the same thing happening, with people hanging up on No. 1 and never getting to No. 2.

In obedience to the first commandment, we come to God to tell him how much we love him. What is his first response? It follows the pattern of Jesus' speaking to Peter on the seashore at the conclusion of the Gospel of John. Jesus really pushes Peter as to whether Peter truly loves him. Each time, Peter responds, "Yes, I really do love you." And each time, Jesus comes back, "Fine! So, now, feed my sheep"--which is to say, "Proceed to commandment two, for that is the best way of proving your first commandment love of the LORD." So, the second commandment does get into the picture either way. Yet, if I may say so, the action has an entirely different significance depending upon whether one comes to the second commandment by way of the First or whether one moves directly to the Second as an ignoring of the First.

Indeed, I think there is one compelling reason why coming by way of the First is the only move that will make the Second workable at all. When the command is that one is to love the neighbor as oneself, I suppose that, if the neighbor happens also to be one's good friend, it might be within the realm of sheer human possibility that we find ourselves able to love such a person as we love ourselves. However, as soon as the command is extended in asking us to love as ourselves that neighbor who is to us "the stranger," or even "the enemy"--well, then, the commandment is asking of us the impossible, asking of us that which runs totally against the grain of our human nature.

So, you see, a First-Commandment love relationship with God is absolutely essential as the one thing that might conceivably convert, transform, and empower us to the point that we have any chance of succeeding with the Second. Without the First Commandment, the Second would spell nothing.

Yet I do not believe that our failure to give first attention to the first Commandment has been for any lack of understanding as to how one goes about loving God. No, we simply have been so caught up with ourselves that there has been a general laxity and sloppiness in paying attention to what God asks.

I think that is why Paul the apostle exemplifies us to:

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The only way we can know how to love others is by loving ourselves first. If a person hates themselves they would be unable to love God, or anyone else for that matter. Loving oneself comes with being self-aware, which then allows a person to love another as themselves.

Again, that is not what the way the Bible explains it.

1John 4:19-21 We love him, because he first loved us.

If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also.


Another example of the second commandment following the first, not the second preceding the first or trumping it.

Love according to Christianity, originates from a source outside of us. Not within us when we attain consciousness.

[Butterfly]

Lets not confuse CASUAL laws with PERMISSION to do something.
God may have accommodated His laws to the Hebrew understanding BUT that in no way = condoning an act.

There are many examples in the Old Testament of God commanding specific immoral acts which is far different than merely accommodating. Take for instance this passage from 2 Samuel where God first gives Saul's wives to David, and then because of David's sin in having Uriah killed, orders David's wives to be taken from him and given to his son Absalom to rape.

2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives (Saul’s) into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;…Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon…Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives (formerly Saul’s) before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sam.16:21-22 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.

That is like saying that murder is Ok because you only go to jail where you have all your needs met.
Look at it this way, the Laws God gave the freed slaves from Egypt were, for them, hard enough to keep, can you image if they would have bothered even TRYING to keep them if they were more strict?
The Laws of the OT were actually more moral than their neighbour counterparts.

Trying to justify immorality in the Old Testament by saying that one set of laws is "more" moral than another set, is like saying it's okay to rape a woman because that is better than killing her. Laws do not have to be more strict, because merely following the Golden Rule covers every possible situation in how to treat others.

The NT view on morals i very clear in the writings of the Gospels and you won't find more "superiour moraliity" than Christ's teachings and that is why western morals and laws are based on them.
As Paul Said: There is no male or female, no slave nor master under Christ.

Any law based on the Golden Rule is superior. When Paul stated that there is no male, or female in Christ he was speaking of salvation equally applying to all, it had nothing to do with people being treated equally under the law, because they weren't. Women and slaves were never treated as equals with men in Bible, which is full of male bias and gender discrimination.

[PaulSacramento]

It seems that you h ave your mind set on YOUR interpretation and I can respect that.
I simply submit to you that many of us have spend quite a few years of study and have come to different conclusions, even before we were believers.
May I suggest the works of Paul Copan?
And perhaps Kenton Sparks also?
You understanding of the bible may need a different view point.

You golden rule is highly subjective and I am surprised you can't see that.
A law based on subjective values will always be subjective to the great "sez who" Argument.

[Butterfly]

Morality is the product of rising consciousness levels, as people increasingly become more and more aware of their own humanity, and realize that the humanity of others is on par with their own.

So, at what point did these conscious levels get reduced or "devolved"?

It's not a matter of getting reduced or devolved, but rather many peoples consciousness level has never risen from its primitive level.

[Butterfly]

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them.
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong.

#2 does NOT flow from #1, sorry and history has shown us this over and over.
Just because I don't like my property stolen, doesn't equal me NOT stealing someone else's if I can.
There is no "fact" that doing bad things to humans is wrong.
Killing 100 to save 100 million would be considered right by many people.

Of course #2 flows from #1. If you don't like your property stolen you may still steal someone else's, but that does not mean it is morally right. Doing bad things to humans is wrong, if you as a human don't like bad things done to you.

The point is not whether many people might consider it right to kill 100 to save a 100 million people, but rather its a point of moral symmetry. Would those people who are choosing to kill the 100 to save 100 million want to be one of those 100? The moral solution to that problem would be to ask who wants to willingly give their life for another, not to have it taken from them by another.

[B. W.]

You have missed the point again. Hitler was not treating others as he wished to be treated himself. Muslim men are not treating women as they wished to be treated themselves. What you are saying is that people like Hitler, or Muslim men are treating others in a way that best suits their own personal interests, NOT the way they want to be treated themselves...there is a big difference you know.

Yes I am saying as fact, they do, when the most devout circle Mecca what do they do to themselves?

Some people really truly love hating themselves, true or not?

Why do people love to have pain inflicted upon themselves in various ways such as in abusive relationships, performing religious masochistic works, drug/alcohol addiction, mental oppression, etc… True or not?

So would such self loathing be morally wrong in the ways it effects others when the perpetrators don’t mind doing so to themselves?

Fact is - the absolute fact is this - people do not treat others as they themselves wish to be as this personal of view of this principle is subject to personal change, definition, and taste. Subjective Morality twist the definition of treating others as oneself in various intelligent ways to justify one's point of view in their treatment of their own selves.

You are right, many people do not treat others as they wish to be treated, but that does not negate the moral truth of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a universal moral standard that applies to all humans regardless of race, gender or religious persuasion.

People twist the idea of right and wrong to suit their own personal needs, because they are selfish and are only thinking of themselves, that does not denied the principle of the Golden Rule.
Morality can be summed up as follows:

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them.
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong.

From these three points I can derive an absolute judgment statement: "By human standards it is wrong to do bad things to humans."

Without an objective guide from an outside source revealing what and why wrong is wrong and what makes good - good. You are only left with subjective moral slavery. Hate to pop your bubble, there are people who despise themselves and wish to despise others and think such despising is good. People all the time end up calling good evil and evil good. That's the error of subjective morality. Without objective intervention to teach right from wrong, people twist and warp evil into being good.

Subjective morality is true and promotes what is defined as sin in the bible - missing the mark-warping and twisting truth (gaming the system so to speak). Subjective morality needs objective moral standard to instruct what is right and wrong. Subjective mortality cannot decide what even good is...

Some people hate going to the dentist to have a tooth filled because it produces pain, anxiety, all bad feelings ( it is a bad thing being done to them), yet the dentist fixes what is bad through controlled pain. For others public speaking is their greatest fear that produces much mental pain. So lets look at your logic tree...

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them (fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking).
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans such as fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong. Therefore fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking is wrong due to the feeling of pain it brings to humans.

Morality cannot be founded upon feelings alone that are used to determine what is right and what is wrong.

An objective standard is needed to help define why good is good and why bad is bad.
-
-
-

[Butterfly]

It seems that you h ave your mind set on YOUR interpretation and I can respect that.
I simply submit to you that many of us have spend quite a few years of study and have come to different conclusions, even before we were believers.
May I suggest the works of Paul Copan?
And perhaps Kenton Sparks also?
You understanding of the bible may need a different view point.

You golden rule is highly subjective and I am surprised you can't see that.
A law based on subjective values will always be subjective to the great "sez who" Argument.

The great "sez who" argument is argued from the point of the "who", which is none other than humans... When all humans share a common set of values, those value go from being subjective to objective for humans. If humans love themselves, then they do not want any harm to befall them, hence this value of wanting no harm to come to oneself becomes a moral standard by which all humans can follow, without the need of a outside divine source.

I have viewed the Bible from both a Christian and non-Christian perspective.
Thank you for the suggestions on reading materials, I am familiar with Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster?, and would answer his question by saying...yes, the god of the Bible is a moral monster.

[Butterfly]

You have missed the point again. Hitler was not treating others as he wished to be treated himself. Muslim men are not treating women as they wished to be treated themselves. What you are saying is that people like Hitler, or Muslim men are treating others in a way that best suits their own personal interests, NOT the way they want to be treated themselves...there is a big difference you know.

Yes I am saying as fact, they do, when the most devout circle Mecca what do they do to themselves?

Some people really truly love hating themselves, true or not?

Why do people love to have pain inflicted upon themselves in various ways such as in abusive relationships, performing religious masochistic works, drug/alcohol addiction, mental oppression, etc… True or not?

So would such self loathing be morally wrong in the ways it effects others when the perpetrators don’t mind doing so to themselves?

Yes, there are people who hate themselves, but as a general rule people do not hate themselves unless they have been instructed to do so by their religion, or have some form of mental disease.

Without an objective guide from an outside source revealing what and why wrong is wrong and what makes good - good. You are only left with subjective moral slavery. Hate to pop your bubble, there are people who despise themselves and wish to despise others and think such despising is good. People all the time end up calling good evil and evil good. That's the error of subjective morality. Without objective intervention to teach right from wrong, people twist and warp evil into being good.
Subjective morality is true and promotes what is defined as sin in the bible - missing the mark-warping and twisting truth (gaming the system so to speak). Subjective morality needs objective moral standard to instruct what is right and wrong. Subjective mortality cannot decide what even good is...

Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God. There are people from all walks of life that despise themselves and the only thing that can ever change them is when they start loving themselves. Self hatred is a disease that ends in the ultimate destruction of that life, which is the reason we know it is aberrant behavior.

As I have said previously, morality does not need to come from a source outside of ourselves...all that is needed is a self awareness and a realization that all humans should be treated in the same manner as ones self wishes to be treated. Of course there are always people who abuse themselves and others, but that would be true no matter where one thinks morality comes from. Even Christians who believe that morality is given by God know that there are abusers who call themselves Christians. In the Bible itself God is portrayed many times as acting immorally, which shows that the only true standard of measure for morality comes from treating others as you wish to be treated, not by following a set of arbitrary rules given in a religious text.

Some people hate going to the dentist to have a tooth filled because it produces pain, anxiety, all bad feelings ( it is a bad thing being done to them), yet the dentist fixes what is bad through controlled pain. For others public speaking is their greatest fear that produces much mental pain. So lets look at your logic tree...

1. It is a universal fact that humans do not like what they consider to be bad things done to them (fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking).
2. So, if all humans independently do not like bad things done to them, then it is wrong by human standards to do bad things to humans such as fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking.
3. It then becomes a fact that doing bad things to humans is wrong. Therefore fixing a bad tooth, needful surgery, removing a splinter, public speaking is wrong due to the feeling of pain it brings to humans.

Morality cannot be founded upon feelings alone that are used to determine what is right and what is wrong.

An objective standard is needed to help define why good is good and why bad is bad.
-
-
-

The fallacy of your dental analogy is that the pain a dentist inflicts upon his patient is not a bad thing, but a necessary part of repairing a bad tooth. Pain isn't always bad even though it feels bad. It is a good thing we feel pain because it keeps us from injuring ourselves which is what happens to people who have Leprosy...their limbs become numb and get injured without them knowing it.

There is no objective standard outside of the human experience to define good and bad. The Muslims have their Koran, the Christians have their Bible, the Hindus have their Vedas...who's to say which is right?

[Icthus]

There is no objective standard outside of the human experience to define good and bad. The Muslims have their Koran, the Christians have their Bible, the Hindus have their Vedas...who's to say which is right?

Unfortunately, most of us here believe that there is an objective standard outside of the human experience, and that it is God. Simply stating that there isn't an objective standard won't convince us that it is true. The fact that different people believe in different sources of morality doesn't mean that none of them are real. Saying "who's to say which is right?" won't cut it if one IS right. We Christians would argue that God is the source of morality, specifically the God of the Bible.

Also, you seem to be conflating objective morals with universally held morals at a few points. Though all people (and that's being generous, a single madman could throw off the whole system) may not like it when others do bad things to them, that in no way forces them to accept the Golden Rule by making the jump from themselves to others. Even if all people believed in the Golden Rule, that would no more make it objectively true than believing the Sun revolves around the Earth would make the solar system shift. If the Christian God exists, then objective morals exist, and they are in no way dependent upon human understanding.

[Butterfly]

But if God exists, he has everything to do with morality. He is metaphysically ultimate, the greatest possible being, pure existence in itself. All causal forces derive from God. You can't say "If one looks at the universe up until the point of human existence, no such object called "morality" existed, even if you believe God created everything up until that point." because you can't prove that morality didn't exist before humans. The fact that no agents on Earth understand morality doesn't show that it didn't exist. It would be like saying that the laws of physics didn't exist until people existed to discover them. If morality is, as you say, totally dependent upon self conscious agents, then if God exists, he must be the source of morality because he is the first and ultimate self conscious agent, the agent from which all other agents derive their existence. If God exists, morality has existed as long as he has, which was way longer than humanity.

You say if God exists, he has everything to do with morality. So, which God is it that exists? The Muslim god? The Hindu gods? The biblical god, Yahweh? All of those gods are very different in what they consider to be moral truths.

You also seem to be treating the Golden Rule as though it were objectively true, which it isn't. As Paul pointed out, in your chain of logic about the Golden Rule, premise #2 does not follow logically from premise #1. I don't think any serious philosophers have posited that the Golden Rule is a moral fact, and the vast majority believe, rightfully, that objective morals can only exist if God exists. Otherwise it's basically a moral free for all, which many philosophers are comfortable accepting.

Again I must posit the question: which God exists? You can't have them all existing, and who are you to say that your god is the one who exists. There is no "moral free for all" if morality is based on the Golden Rule, rather the free for all occurs when you have many different gods, inspiring many different religious texts, all positing their own form of morality. That is why amongst religious folks you have every variety of morality, whereas morality based on the Golden Rule is the same everywhere and applies to all humans equally.

[Butterfly]

There is no objective standard outside of the human experience to define good and bad. The Muslims have their Koran, the Christians have their Bible, the Hindus have their Vedas...who's to say which is right?

Unfortunately, most of us here believe that there is an objective standard outside of the human experience, and that it is God. Simply stating that there isn't an objective standard won't convince us that it is true. The fact that different people believe in different sources of morality doesn't mean that none of them are real. Saying "who's to say which is right?" won't cut it if one IS right. We Christians would argue that God is the source of morality, specifically the God of the Bible.

Also, you seem to be conflating objective morals with universally held morals at a few points. Though all people (and that's being generous, a single madman could throw off the whole system) may not like it when others do bad things to them, that in no way forces them to accept the Golden Rule by making the jump from themselves to others. Even if all people believed in the Golden Rule, that would no more make it objectively true than believing the Sun revolves around the Earth would make the solar system shift. If the Christian God exists, then objective morals exist, and they are in no way dependent upon human understanding.

We know that human morals do exist, but we don't know if any god exists. I have shown a perfectly plausible way in which morality can emerge without the existence of a god. Now that doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but it does mean that morality can exist without a god. Just because most of you here believe in the Christian God, doesn't prove he exists anymore than because most of the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus meant he was real. The existence of morality doesn't prove the existence of God.