Morality Without God

Pingback: Tweets that mention Godless Business – Morality Without God -- Topsy.com
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/madmanwoo Nathan

Maybe it should have had:

"or Perhaps……God is a cunt.
mare_vaporium

You know, I seem to vaguely recall Andrew saying you'd do an episode on this very subject, yet I'm still waiting.

I'm curious to see what you all have to say on the subject, in part because until about a year ago, I never even thought about it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Oh yeah – we should talk about that.

mare_vaporium

Yes, you should.

AndrewFinden

How do avoid the the problem that by comparing one person's morality with another you are inadvertently invoking an objective standard by which to judge the two? (e.g. if we both give a description of NYC, the only way one can be more accurate than the other is by comparison to the real NYC)

http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

Unless someone is a normative moral relativist or moral nihilist, you can still criticize the morals of others. If a relativist of another stripe were to examine the morals described in the video, they would come to the conclusion that the God described was very much like what you would expect from bronze and iron age people, rather than the universal, unchanging, enlightened morality we would expect from an all knowing, all loving being.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

Can you define 'normative moral relativist' for me please? Are you suggesting that Andrew is a moral objectivist?

http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

From wikipedia: "the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards."

I'm not sure what Andrew's view on morals an ethics are.

Can you please define what you mean by "objective" morality?

AndrewFinden

Thanks. I tend to find that people who claim that there is no universal or objective standard still act as so their is.

by objective morality, I mean that the rightness or wrongness is determined by a standard external to the person – whether intrinsic to the action itself (e.g. that rape is itself wrong, regardless if someone thinks it is ok) or by some other external standard.

In Andrew's post below I would call that idea inter-subjectivity – it's still a subjective idea, but at a group level instead. I still think it has the same problems you note, namely, how can one group or culture condemn the views of another, even it runs counter to theirs. An extreme example would be our right to condemn a cannibalistic tribe – if they as a group have decided it is morally ok for them to do that, unless there is a bigger objective standard, we cannot say theirs is better or worse, just different (or 'shorter' as he put it).

n.b. I do realise that subjective and relative are not quite the same, but the problems inherent are not dissimilar.

http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

I agree with your definition of objective morality.

I don't think subjectivity can ever be removed from matters of ethics and morals, as it is up to minds to determine what value to use to bridge the is/ought gap. There are various forms of moral universalism that are not absolutist, such as utilitarianism.

I think some part of social contract theory comes into play when groups decide what will and will not be tolerated. Some acts are almost universally not tolerated, such as murder, stealing, and rape. At least, they're not tolerated within the group. Our history is full of cases where those acts are not only tolerated but encouraged against other groups.

I think everyone has the right to voice their opinion on what they view as moral and ethical. I am free to criticize those I disagree with, and welcome their critiques of my own. If they are able to present a compelling case that their morals provide for greater individual and group happiness and stability, I am open to changing my mind.

I think the same should be done between different societies as well. If societies don't agree with us, there are a wide range of actions we can take, from ignoring them and refusing to trade goods to outright war in extreme circumstances (such as preventing genocide).

I'm just making some very big generalizations, so please don't take any of this as my exact viewpoint on any of these matters. Without an absolute standard, who can say who is right? It's up to us. It's far from perfect, but I think it's the best we have.

I'm curious what theistic ethical system you adhere to. I'm most familiar with divine command theory and natural law (which have their own fair share of problems).
http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

Some good points.. some stuff to think about – I'm away for a week so won't have a chance to respond till then.. probably a good thing ;)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

No. We do not need an ultimate ruler to determine is something is shorter than another. In the same way we can decide which actions are more moral than others. All that's required to get the ball rolling is a generally agreed set of basic assumptions about what is desirable in a society.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

I didn't say anything about an ultimate ruler.
If we take your analogy about shortness – I can't imagine why a builder, for example, would determine which length was better unless he had a particular length the beam needed to be. With out an objective standard, yes one can be shorter, but not better or more appropriate.. just shorter. So then with morality, without some objective standard of comparison the most most you can say is that they are different, not better or worse than eachother (as @Watchmastema has also noted).
But it's obvious that you do wish to say one morality is "better" than another, which means you are using some sort of objective standard to compare them to – you say that this is a "generally agreed set of basic assumptions about what is desirable in society" – effectively the group comes up with that objective standard (though that forces us to then ask by what standard the group decides what is good? Hume's old dictum about how do you get an 'ought' from and 'is'? The problem philosophers call induction..)

http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

Just one little correction. I'll let Andrew respond to other points if he wishes.

The problem of induction has to do with whether or not we can rely on past experience and observations to justify conclusions. Inductive reasoning cannot be proved with deductive reasoning, only inductive, which is circular. Karl Popper "solved" it, but that's only to say that conclusions using inductive reasoning must be falsifiable.

The problem getting an 'ought' from and 'is' is just the 'is-ought' problem.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

ah, yes.. thanks.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

This topic deserves another post. I will jot down some of my thoughts on the matter in the next few days.

http://Thisone Michael

We can never know for sure if we can have morality without god .what sort of morality would it be

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

The kind of morality we see around us.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ollieography ollieography

Wow you guys really do like to talk a lot don't you.
You know it really is quite simple. Take god or any other so called powerful being out of the equation, much like we have done for thousands of years, and will are still where we are today. In fact we would probably be better off, and less people would have lost their lives due to the barbaric ways for which the religion brought upon the world.

For a sentient being, it would not take long to realise that cooperation and being good to another far outweighs any small benefit from going it alone and just doing your own thing. Eventually being what some might call evil, and I call anti-social individualism, will end up catching up to the person in a way that stops them from being that way.
As for group moral mentality, well what's good for the group is good for the individual on a whole. Some things obviously are better for the group and not so much for the individual, and I believe it is a form of moral balancing where by the group as a whole thrives and prospers as does the individuals in their own way.

Now just because we look at religion, of varying types and we say morally(as atheist lets say) that these religions are wrong and immoral doesn't make us incorrect in our accusations nor correct even. However because a lot of us have taken a lot of time to weigh up the pros and cons of religion versus free thinking and atheism et al, then we can safetly say that at the end of the day, the safer, more prosperous path to take for humankind is not the path of religion at all. And anything religion claims to have come from god, was first thought of by man and then claimed later as a moral rule by god.

Oh and I really wish you fuckers would seriously start thinking for yourselves. By that I mean, I don't give a rats arse what Hume said or what Plato said, or any number of dead philosopher have said. Come to your own investigative conclusions then look them up and see if they now agree with you, not the other way around.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

Now just because we look at religion, of varying types and we say morally(as atheist lets say) that these religions are wrong and immoral doesn't make us incorrect in our accusations nor correct even.

Of course – my point is that without some objective standard, you can make no such comparison in the first place.

However because a lot of us have taken a lot of time to weigh up the pros and cons of religion versus free thinking and atheism et al, then we can safetly say that at the end of the day, the safer, more prosperous path to take for humankind is not the path of religion at all.

I wonder if you'd say that if you grew up in Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China? Or indeed, any other culture that doesn't owe much of it's basis to Judeo-Christian moral ideas? Well.. that's going to derail things now, isn't it! ;)

I don't give a rats arse what Hume said or what Plato said, or any number of dead philosopher have said. Come to your own investigative conclusions then look them up and see if they now agree with you, not the other way around.

Exchange 'philosopher' for any other academic discipline (e.g. physicist) and that statement begins to look rather foolish. Knowing what thinkers of the past had to say & weighing up their arguments is part of the process of thinking through an issue. And in any case, if you've been reading the comments around here lately you'll be well aware that while I might agree with Hume's ideas on induction, I vigorously disagree with other ideas of his. But back to the point – how do you get and 'ought' from and 'is', naturalistically speaking?

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

… Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China?

Swapping one irrational set of ideas for another is not rational. Sure Russia and China might be officially atheistic but nobody is driven to action on the basis they do not believe in something. Are you driven to do anything because you do not (I assume) believe in Apollo?

Something else must be added to drive people to action.

Or indeed, any other culture that doesn't owe much of it's basis to Judeo-Christian moral ideas?

Strange how these "founding Christians" took explicit steps to keep state and church separate.

Knowing what thinkers of the past had to say & weighing up their arguments is part of the process of thinking through an issue

That's what he said. Stop being so literalist.

AndrewFinden

Sure Russia and China might be officially atheistic but nobody is driven to action on the basis they do not believe in something.

I think it's a little misleading to suggest that the kind of state atheism in the USSR and China is 'weak' lack of belief that perhaps you would identify with. You must admit, it's doesn't really look good to see how all of the officially atheists states turned out!

Are you driven to do anything because you do not (I assume) believe in Apollo?

I think it's more about what such a lack of belief (or in their case, a belief in lack) might allow. Instead of Apollo, let's take a more practical example: I am not a Muslim, thus I see no reason why I should not keep a dog as a pet. In the case of Stalinist Russia, there are numerous Russian intellects who say that one of the major problems was that they 'forgot about God'. As Dostoevsky put it – if God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible. Now that is not to say that believing God doesn't exist will necessarily make someone a murderer, of course not, but the point is that without it, what reason is there for a dictator not to do as he pleases? What objective standard is there to which he (or she) should be held accountable? If one leader is driven by greed and selfish ambition (aren't they all?!) by what objective standard can we say that this is wrong?
If, as Dawkins argues, there is no such thing as good and evil, how can we say than anyone actually is? Surely we too should just have 'blind pitiless indifference'… 'some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice'.

Strange how these "founding Christians" took explicit steps to keep state and church separate.

Well I wasn't actually referring to 'founding Christians', indeed, in regards to Australia, I don't know you can use that term in the popular American sense. Rather, I refer to a culture – though I think it is fair to say that Australia, as a culture, does owe a great deal to a judeo-christian heritage, and ideas such as 'imago dei'. That the 'founders' of Australia were wise enough to not create an established church is not really the issue. Separation – that the church doesn't run the state and the state doesn't run the church – doesn't alter the cultural and value heritage we're grounded in.

That's what he said. Stop being so literalist.

So it's being 'literalist' because we failed to realise that he meant the opposite of what he actually wrote? Please, tell us how referring to philosophers after you've made your conclusions is the same of referring to philosophers in the process of coming to conclusions?
Ollieography was very clear that seeing what others think should not be one's first port of call (contrary to how anyone writing an academic paper would operate). In any case, as WatcherMastema has rightly pointed out, referring to one well known thinker's position is a form of short hand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

Now just because we look at religion, of varying types and we say morally(as atheist lets say) that these religions are wrong and immoral doesn't make us incorrect in our accusations nor correct even.

Of course – my point is that without some objective standard, you can make no such comparison in the first place.

However because a lot of us have taken a lot of time to weigh up the pros and cons of religion versus free thinking and atheism et al, then we can safetly say that at the end of the day, the safer, more prosperous path to take for humankind is not the path of religion at all.

I wonder if you'd say that if you grew up in Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China? Or indeed, any other culture that doesn't owe much of it's basis to Judeo-Christian moral ideas? Well.. that's going to derail things now, isn't it! ;)
In any case.. I'll assume the 'we' you speak of is simply people who share your view.. needless to say, not everyone who weighs up the pros and cons as you have come to the same conclusions you have.

I don't give a rats arse what Hume said or what Plato said, or any number of dead philosopher have said. Come to your own investigative conclusions then look them up and see if they now agree with you, not the other way around.

Exchange 'philosopher' for any other academic discipline (e.g. physicist) and that statement begins to look rather foolish. Knowing what thinkers of the past had to say & weighing up their arguments is part of the process of thinking through an issue. And in any case, if you've been reading the comments around here lately you'll be well aware that while I might agree with some of Hume's ideas on the is-ought problem, I vigorously disagree with other ideas of his. Citing the 'namer' of a problem is not out of order I would think. But back to the point – how do you get and 'ought' from and 'is', naturalistically speaking?

http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

I have to agree with Andrew on philosophers. When it comes to how to think, I'd be making a mistake if I wasn't aware of what men (and some women) have had to say on the subject who are much smarter than I am. Yes, some of them were crazy. Some, we have found out, were completely wrong… on everything. Some have had lasting impacts that affect us to this day, even to people with no interest in philosophy, and who have never cracked open a philosophy book.

In the case of Hume, it can at times be much quicker and easier to refer to him and a particular argument he made than explain the entire argument itself. It doesn't mean that I just turn my critical thinking off and plug some Hume into an argument, or as a way to superficially add weight to an argument. To quote Newton, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

You never get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ without the addition of a belief system. It is the belief system (with all the values, knowledge and desires which form such a system casually referred to by many as morality or ethics) which determines whether a step is taken and in what direction to arrive at the ought.

Asking “how do you get and ‘ought’ from and ‘is’, naturalistically speaking?” would require an evaluation of what is meant by ‘naturalistically’ and to be honest I have no idea what it means at this stage of the discussion. What would I be referring to if I asked “how do you get and ‘ought’ from and ‘is’, supernaturalistically speaking?” I don’t know.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

You never get an 'ought' from an 'is' without the addition of a belief system.

That sounds very much like the idea that without an external law-giver, there is no right and wrong.. actions just are and consequently, there's no standard by which to judge them or hold people accountable for them.

an evaluation of what is meant by 'naturalistically'

I mean from the viewpoint of philosophical naturalism.

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

Morality Without God

44 – An Atheist Temple

Further Reading

Dog Heads

Matt’s Human Morality

Aunt Matilda’s Cake

Atheism 2.0

The Bizarre Bible

Vaccinations save lives!