Morality without God (paradise, myth, Revelation, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But your 'Golden Rule' must be derived from somewhere, might I ask where?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...It is derived from sensible logic. I'm not going to steal, because I don't want my stuff stolen...I'm not going to kill because i don't want me or my loved ones killed..I will not rape because I don't want my wife or daughters raped....Get the logic yet?.....Can you imagine the chaos if everybody ignored this simple rule?
Not necessarily......some would look for more ramifications...such as, you may also not get another job...your friends/family may lose respect for you.As well as, if you were brought up to believe, and do believe, that stealing is wrong, your conscience may bother you enough to lower your respect for yourself.
So your 'self interest' may go beyond the obvious financial aspect.
Keep in mind how many things that are deemed 'morally wrong as per god' are justified by god-believers when circumstances warrent (in their opinion).
Killing ....believers separate killing from murder..and excuse it during war, for instance.Is that an example of an absolute??
Certainly if one's parents (irrationally surly) erroneously teach you that stealing is always wrong, one may feel bad enough about it not to steal. But surly a rational individual should steal, and it is simply regrettable or regressive have been conditioned to act in a sub optimal way?
However, our rational 'player' should balance out expected costs and expected gains, and money is not the only cost or gain. However, one must accept that they should steal the money if their expected benefits outweigh their expected costs.
I'm not arguing that religious people are more moral, but simply that a belief in God allows for a moral code to exist outside self interest and human beings, whereas morality seems to cease to exist in that sense without God.
I just wonder, in a society that was guided by the rule of moral rights and wrongs, where that leaves people.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...It is derived from sensible logic.
But there are different logics, and so thats not a universal rule. It is in fact just your rule, and subject to your power to enforce it. So, if, again, our player is giving the chance to steal, with a high percentage chance of getting away with it, they should certainly do it, unless you can enforce your morality upon them, in which case it ceases to be in their rational self interest.
This seems to me not to be morality anymore, right and wrong don't seem to be important, just rational self interest, this surly isn't the same thing as morality?
Certainly if one's parents (irrationally surly) erroneously teach you that stealing is always wrong, one may feel bad enough about it not to steal. But surly a rational individual should steal, and it is simply regrettable or regressive have been conditioned to act in a sub optimal way?
However, our rational 'player' should balance out expected costs and expected gains, and money is not the only cost or gain. However, one must accept that they should steal the money if their expected benefits outweigh their expected costs.
I'm not arguing that religious people are more moral, but simply that a belief in God allows for a moral code to exist outside self interest and human beings, whereas morality seems to cease to exist in that sense without God.
I just wonder, in a society that was guided by the rule of moral rights and wrongs, where that leaves people.
Lord love a duck! It has been explained to you six ways from Sunday...A 6 year old can understand, why can't you?
Lord love a duck! It has been explained to you six ways from Sunday...A 6 year old can understand, why can't you?
Because I'm not a 6 year old?
My assertion is that morality, as generally conceived, is a set of rules of right and wrong. To have a set of rules they must exist somewhere. If there are things that are 'just wrong' then those rules must exist transcendently, ie not exist in people's interest/mind, or, as far as I can work out must exist in God.
If then, we accept that there is no God, and thus no set of morals, I wonder where this set of rules comes from. I would suggest that it comes from no where, thus doesn't exist.
It has been suggested that morality can be a 'code of group interests' but it seems to me that is more of a social norm , and more self interest that 'morality' per se. If morality is just self interest, then why not steal and murder if you can get away with it, surly, rationally you should?
I'm uncertain what your answer to this argument it, you've mentioned a 'Golden Rule', but not where its derived from, or why it shouldn't be ignored where expedient.
But there are different logics, and so thats not a universal rule. It is in fact just your rule, and subject to your power to enforce it. So, if, again, our player is giving the chance to steal, with a high percentage chance of getting away with it, they should certainly do it, unless you can enforce your morality upon them, in which case it ceases to be in their rational self interest.
This seems to me not to be morality anymore, right and wrong don't seem to be important, just rational self interest, this surly isn't the same thing as morality?
Repeat.....the Golden Rule is a logical base for having a workable society.
Self-interest includes having a workable society
My assertion is that morality, as generally conceived, is a set of rules of right and wrong. To have a set of rules they must exist somewhere. If there are things that are 'just wrong' then those rules must exist transcendently, ie not exist in people's interest/mind, or, as far as I can work out must exist in God.
If then, we accept that there is no God, and thus no set of morals, I wonder where this set of rules comes from. I would suggest that it comes from no where, thus doesn't exist.
It has been suggested that morality can be a 'code of group interests' but it seems to me that is more of a social norm , and more self interest that 'morality' per se. If morality is just self interest, then why not steal and murder if you can get away with it, surly, rationally you should?
I'm uncertain what your answer to this argument it, you've mentioned a 'Golden Rule', but not where its derived from, or why it shouldn't be ignored where expedient.
I'm done with you. Morality is NOT a single set of rules..... I don't enjoy discussing important issues with a stone wall.
Repeat.....the Golden Rule is a logical base for having a workable society.
Self-interest includes having a workable society
Well, the Golden rule could be one rule of making a workable society. It hardly seems necessary. Perhaps more: 'the powerful should do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they must accept' should replace your rule? After all I really don't think many people treat the homeless, or shop workers, or bar workers, or street cleaners how they would want to be treated, yet society struggles on.
Isn't your rule a bit simple anyhow, I mean, in your 'moral' system, if I want to sleep with a 12 year old, and don't mind you doing it to, its perfectly morally fine, because I have done unto you as I would have you do?
That your rule is naive is rather unimportant though, the more pertinent issue is surly that you think that morality is simply about the good functioning of a group. To which one really must ask why individuals should stick to your rules, in instances where they benefit from doing so?
So, morality has just become utility, rationality? A code that you kinda think people should stick to, because your teacher told you that it would be good?
I'm done with you. Morality is NOT a single set of rules..... I don't enjoy discussing important issues with a stone wall.
lol - I'm afraid that 5 years of degree politics makes it difficult for me to talk to 'norms' sometimes. I start to assume a certain direction and level. Its been fun though.
Well, the Golden rule could be one rule of making a workable society. It hardly seems necessary. Perhaps more: 'the powerful should do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they must accept' should replace your rule? After all I really don't think many people treat the homeless, or shop workers, or bar workers, or street cleaners how they would want to be treated, yet society struggles on.
Isn't your rule a bit simple anyhow, I mean, in your 'moral' system, if I want to sleep with a 12 year old, and don't mind you doing it to, its perfectly morally fine, because I have done unto you as I would have you do?
That your rule is naive is rather unimportant though, the more pertinent issue is surly that you think that morality is simply about the good functioning of a group. To which one really must ask why individuals should stick to your rules, in instances where they benefit from doing so?
So, morality has just become utility, rationality? A code that you kinda think people should stick to, because your teacher told you that it would be good?
The 'issue' is not whether or not people adhere to the 'rules'.
The issue is the Golden Rule would work to the benefit of society (and thereby for the individuals in that society) if it was adhered to.
Your last sentence tells me it is also a good time to end my participation in this thread
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
