• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?

tomspug

Absorbant
The Categorical Imperative – Universalisability An imperative is a statement of what should be done. We have said before that Hume realised you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In other words, experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives (If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat). A description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act.
A Categorical Imperative is a should statement, but it is not based on experience, and doesn’t rely on a particular outcome. Rather, it logically precedes experience, or helps us make sense of experience. In another area of thinking, Kant showed that we must presume that time moves forwards – our mind imposes this on our experiences to make sense of them. We therefore could never demonstrate or prove this through experience.
It is like that with the categorical imperative: certain actions are logically inconsistent and would make no sense as universal laws, such as lying. As a result, ‘Do not lie’ is a categorical imperative. This understanding that our mind plays an active role in ordering and shaping our experience was revolutionary, and is Kant’s greatest achievement.
Kant states the categorical imperative as follows:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
So with this idea in mind, that logically categorical imperatives (ethics) are not the result of experience, how are they justified without the belief in something greater than our personal experience: a universality? And is not that the very definition of what we consider theology? Granted, there is a difference between "religion" (a body of people) and "theology" (the relationship between man and God). So the question is whether or not God is required, logically, in the equation.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?
Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

The Categorical Imperative – Universalisability An imperative is a statement of what should be done. We have said before that Hume realised you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In other words, experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives (If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat). A description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act.
A Categorical Imperative is a should statement, but it is not based on experience, and doesn’t rely on a particular outcome. Rather, it logically precedes experience, or helps us make sense of experience. In another area of thinking, Kant showed that we must presume that time moves forwards – our mind imposes this on our experiences to make sense of them. We therefore could never demonstrate or prove this through experience.
It is like that with the categorical imperative: certain actions are logically inconsistent and would make no sense as universal laws, such as lying. As a result, ‘Do not lie’ is a categorical imperative. This understanding that our mind plays an active role in ordering and shaping our experience was revolutionary, and is Kant’s greatest achievement.
Kant states the categorical imperative as follows:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
I can't tell whether this is just an example of content-free navel-gazing or I just need more coffee, but I haven't the faintest idea what the author thinks he's saying.

So with this idea in mind, that logically categorical imperatives (ethics) are not the result of experience, how are they justified without the belief in something greater than our personal experience: a universality?
"A universality" needn't be God. It could be human rights, for instance.

And is not that the very definition of what we consider theology? Granted, there is a difference between "religion" (a body of people) and "theology" (the relationship between man and God).
I disagree with your definition of "theology." Theology is neither ethics nor relationship, it is speculation on God's nature.

So the question is whether or not God is required, logically, in the equation.
And the answer is no.

:)
 

tomspug

Absorbant
The quote is not from an author, it is a definition of Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative". However the argument that you can't get a should statement out of an is statement is from David Hume.

To elaborate, we are only able to draw logical conclusions from our own experience. If categorical imperative exist (we SHOULD do something) it cannot be justified by our individual experiences. The problem that arises is how can something like a categorical imperative then exist from only a collective of individual experiences. This "universality" requires an outside-of-experience perspective. The question than becomes a philosophical one: what exactly is the value of a universality and how can it be justified?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
The quote is not from an author,
Someone had to write it.

it is a definition of Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative". However the argument that you can't get a should statement out of an is statement is from David Hume.
I'll go with "lack of coffee," then. ;)

To elaborate, we are only able to draw logical conclusions from our own experience.
I disagree with this. We apply logic to hypotheticals all the time. Indeed, this is the very foundation of theology.

If categorical imperative exist (we SHOULD do something) it cannot be justified by our individual experiences.
Sure it can. I've been raped. This experience teaches me that rape is a terrible thing. Therefore, I can logically conclude that rape should never happen.

The problem that arises is how can something like a categorical imperative then exist from only a collective of individual experiences.
An example of how logical arguments are only as good as their premises.

;):
sixlogic.jpg
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
As ethics are a result of "societal norms and morals", and these morals are the result of societal evolution. Then the Abrahamic God does not enter the equation.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
The main point here seems to be “you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement” and this is quite correct. But does this mean that we require “God” to get a should statement? How do we get a should statement from “God”? How do we get a should statement with or without “God”.

The answer for me lies in our values. For example we value health, so “If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat”. Once the value is determined the hypothetical imperative is no longer hypothetical and the should statement follows quite naturally. The one point that I need to add to this is that the self is an illusion and plays no role in our moral considerations. So just as I should eat well because I value health, I should provide the means for others to eat well because I value health. A mature moral person is capable of determining values and applying them. “God” plays no role in this in any way.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
To elaborate, we are only able to draw logical conclusions from our own experience. If categorical imperative exist (we SHOULD do something) it cannot be justified by our individual experiences. The problem that arises is how can something like a categorical imperative then exist from only a collective of individual experiences. This "universality" requires an outside-of-experience perspective. The question than becomes a philosophical one: what exactly is the value of a universality and how can it be justified?
Outside-of-experience perspective? many would consider the ugly side of this as indoctrination or state run moral codes.
What else should we base our moral ideas if not on hard earned experiences? and why should we detach our morality from practicality with hypothetical elements?

'morality' and human rights are important and needed by many around the world, isnt that itself meaningful with or without a god in the equation?
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
The OP has made a huge error here. The question being asked in the OP isn’t whether god is required – it is asking whether an authority is required. Subtle but, IMO, a crucial difference.

I actually agree that an authority is required – I call it reason and experience.

I disagree strongly with the claim that ethics cannot come from experience. To me, history has performed a series of moral experiments that we can learn from.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Kant's position that categorical imperatives precede experience makes some sense in the real world. When we were children, our parents and other adults instilled rules of conduct in us. Whether they attributed those rules to God or not, they preceded actual experience in the world. As we matured and became more experienced, we re-examined those "imperatives" continually. Most of us who abandoned religion came to realize that there are other bases for not lying than to please a deity. Your social reputation with others is at stake, and, if you are caught in a lie too often, people will come to mistrust you. (Children learn about this kind of mistrust when they lie to their parents.) So the experiential basis for morality grows as one matures. God--ultimate authority--is useful to those who need a handy reason for obedience that does not require a lot of explanation.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
I actually agree that an authority is required – I call it reason and experience.

Reason and experience led Hitler to genocide and South Africa to apartheid. Reason and experience led to the Canadian Indian residential school system. When we look back at those things, we are appalled, and we'd like to think that we wouldn't do such things. But there are others that are appalled, based on reason and experience, that Hitler never had a chance to follow through. There are those who think that South Africa has made a huge mistake in abandoning apartheid. Some look back on the residential schools and say, "Well, the main problem was that they didn't do their job efficiently enough." Now these are minority views, but why shouldn't their views be authoritative?
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Without a higher power we cannot have any universal ethics. Being that we are all equal in nature and power, no human can force ethical standards on any other human. Only a higher power (such as a deity) can set an ethical standard of morality that is universal.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Reason and experience led Hitler to genocide and South Africa to apartheid. Reason and experience led to the Canadian Indian residential school system. When we look back at those things, we are appalled, and we'd like to think that we wouldn't do such things. But there are others that are appalled, based on reason and experience, that Hitler never had a chance to follow through. There are those who think that South Africa has made a huge mistake in abandoning apartheid. Some look back on the residential schools and say, "Well, the main problem was that they didn't do their job efficiently enough." Now these are minority views, but why shouldn't their views be authoritative?
Your examples show only that the ethics of the societies mentioned did not last. As they were ultimately destructive to society as a whole, they were either abandoned, or rejected by global ethics.
One can also look at those who used, or use, their understanding of Gods ethics to commit atrocities against others, or to deny them simple human rights. This in no way makes an argument against God any more logical than your argument against reason.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Without a higher power we cannot have any universal ethics. Being that we are all equal in nature and power, no human can force ethical standards on any other human. Only a higher power (such as a deity) can set an ethical standard of morality that is universal.

Why do you necessitate force? Or universal ethics?
Ethics and morals are those actions and attitudes that work best for the continued survival of a society. By treating others morally, you are more assured of moral treatment yourself. While this is in no way guaranteed, it has worked to advance human civilization to a point where certain things are considered "morally wrong", thus ensuring our societal survival.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Without a higher power we cannot have any universal ethics.
What are universal ethics? are we talking about not mugging old ladies on the streets? or?

Being that we are all equal in nature and power, no human can force ethical standards on any other human. Only a higher power (such as a deity) can set an ethical standard of morality that is universal.
Isnt implying that a higher power requests a certain kind of morality is only another way of having certain humans push their moral codes over those of others?
or in other words isnt this an appeal to authority?
by the way, do you really think that we are all equal in power?
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Why do you necessitate force? Or universal ethics?
Ethics and morals are those actions and attitudes that work best for the continued survival of a society. By treating others morally, you are more assured of moral treatment yourself. While this is in no way guaranteed, it has worked to advance human civilization to a point where certain things are considered "morally wrong", thus ensuring our societal survival.
If there is no higher power to lay out universal ethics then you end up with what Hitler created. Can you argue against Hitler's idea of morality without a higher power? Hitler believed that it would be best for society to get rid of those who are dependent on and therefore harm society. That's a logical argument. There's no independent moral reason to spend lots of money supporting those who either can't or won't support themselves.

Because humans view morality as something that is subjective, we have to have some higher power that can enforce a universal standard of morality.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
What are universal ethics?
Universal ethics would be ethics set by a power independent of humanity.

Isnt implying that a higher power requests a certain kind of morality is only another way of having certain humans push their moral codes over those of others?
It could possibly be used that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be.

by the way, do you really think that we are all equal in power?

No human has anything special about him/her that grants him/her the power to decide what is moral for another human being. That is what makes us equal in power. If I have an army and with that army I force a group of people to obey a certain moral standard, I would be doing something unethical.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Universal ethics would be ethics set by a power independent of humanity.
Who else other than humans can shape our ethics, taboos, and cultural tendencies?
No human has anything special about him/her that grants him/her the power to decide what is moral for another human being. That is what makes us equal in power. If I have an army and with that army I force a group of people to obey a certain moral standard, I would be doing something unethical.
And yet this 'unethical' trend has been widespread since time immemorial. human beings are not equal in power, and we have never been.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Without a higher power we cannot have any universal ethics. Being that we are all equal in nature and power, no human can force ethical standards on any other human. Only a higher power (such as a deity) can set an ethical standard of morality that is universal.
Human beings are actually very good at forcing other human beings to act in a specific way, whether this is ethical or not is the question. However I can’t think of a single example in all of history of a “God” either forcing humans to do anything or setting an ethical standard. Can you cite an example of a “God” doing anything like this?
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Who else other than humans can shape our ethics, taboos, and cultural tendencies?
A deity?

And yet this 'unethical' trend has been widespread since time immemorial. human beings are not equal in power, and we have never been.

This is true. But would you say that it is moral for the powerful majority to force its will upon the weak minority?
 
Top