Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?

[TheKnight]

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?

There is no such example.

I think the best thing we could do is to come together and all agree on a certain standard. I believe that America does quite a good job with this.

 

[Caladan]

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?

You make the point I left out of my post.
religious codes have been created by humans as well.. the only problem is that some of them have been attributed an infallible dimension. maybe as a result of a process of giving them a flavor of absolutism, or by other factors.

 

[Caladan]

A deity?

as stated in the previous posts.. this is another appeal to authority. no codes have been written by God, they were all written by humans, and many of them have been displayed as god(s) given. in fact some of the known ones overlap on certain points as they are the product of the same region, like the ANE.

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

Im not really discussing whats moral or not. but the simple idea, that people have never been equal in power.

 

[fantome profane]

There is no such example.

I think the best thing we could do is to come together and all agree on a certain standard. I believe that America does quite a good job with this.

So you are talking about the actions of human beings, not “Gods”. The evidence indicates that ethical standards come from human beings, acted on by human beings, imposed by human beings (ethics of the people, for the people, by the people). “God” plays no role in this.

 

[TheKnight]

So you are talking about the actions of human beings, not “Gods”. The evidence indicates that ethical standards come from human beings, acted on by human beings, imposed by human beings (ethics of the people, for the people, by the people). “God” plays no role in this.

Correct. That is what the evidence indicates. That being the case, the best moral system we could come up with is one where everyone agrees.

I think America (with its fairly general moral system) does quite a good job.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see why we need a God or Holy man to tell us how to behave. Since most people have a conscience, and when the feeling of guilt or glee comes into play, then a feeling of ethics, morals, and the basic since of right and wrong are formed. And when a large part of a given culture feels the same, it tends to become the norm for a societies since of right and wrong. No God needed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the best thing we could do is to come together and all agree on a certain standard. I believe that America does quite a good job with this.

We can't decide much as a Nation. There have been very few times when the nation, almost as a whole, agreed on one issue.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Point of fact: Hitler and the Nazis were Christians. Ridding the world of Jews was a theistic argument: God had created them inferior and despicable, therefore the superior race was obliged to stamp them out in order to be in harmony with God's plan for mankind. Also, the Jews were not dependent on Nazi Germany - it was the other way around. The Germans were living on credit and the Jews were the creditors. Sure, maybe there's some logic in trying to wipe out the people you owe money to so that you won't have to pay back, but it was religious fervour that made them believe the Jews were subhuman and therefore not deserving of the rights accorded to Christian Germans.

 

[Caladan]

We can't decide much as a Nation. There have been very few times when the nation, almost as a whole, agreed on one issue.

Perhaps the natural balance for maintaining a moral society or conscious society is the dynamics of opposing views and debate. I think its unnatural to have standard, as if the human factor can be overridden by a serial code of what is moral. different cultures and nations have their own tendencies and social climate.

 

[TheKnight]

We can't decide much as a Nation. There have been very few times when the nation, almost as a whole, agreed on one issue.

This is true.

Point of fact: Hitler and the Nazis were Christians. Ridding the world of Jews was a theistic argument: God had created them inferior and despicable, therefore the superior race was obliged to stamp them out in order to be in harmony with God's plan for mankind. Also, the Jews were not dependent on Nazi Germany - it was the other way around. The Germans were living on credit and the Jews were the creditors. Sure, maybe there's some logic in trying to wipe out the people you owe money to so that you won't have to pay back, but it was religious fervour that made them believe the Jews were subhuman and therefore not deserving of the rights accorded to Christian Germans.

What about the murder of the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, etc etc. The point was to get rid of those who were a burden on society. If you read Mein Kampf, this is clear. The point, while there may have been some theistic motivation, was to get rid of those who harmed society in Hitler's opinion.

 

[Alceste]

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.

No, God is not logically required. The "universality" that is greater than our personal experience, and can be drawn upon to formulate a system of ethics, is our collective experience. There is evidence to suggest that a sense of fairness is inherent in primates - capuchin monkeys can be trained to trade pebbles for cucumbers, but if one of them gets a grape (which they like better) the rest will stop trading. Sound like a strike to you? Does to me. It has also been observed that if you rig up a rope that requires two monkeys to pull it to make food drop down, when one of the monkeys refuses to share the other one won't help him pull the rope again - primates will give up a chance at food rather than tolerate unfairness.

We're not capuchin monkeys, but we are primates. Observations of the behavior of our distant cousins in nature - in cooperation with our ability to reason, empathise, learn about the natural world, love one another and pass on our collective history from one generation to the next - provide ample information to construct a system of ethics that is far more consistent with the principle of universality than the system of morals offered by any individual religion or deity.

When there are so many gods and religions to choose from, is there any potential for a universal code of ethics inherent in God-belief? I think not. In fact, I think placing the responsibility for constructing a system of ethics outside yourself lays you open to somebody else (not God) constructing it for you to advance their own agenda.

 

[Alceste]

This is true.


What about the murder of the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, etc etc. The point was to get rid of those who were a burden on society. If you read Mein Kampf, this is clear. The point, while there may have been some theistic motivation, was to get rid of those who harmed society in Hitler's opinion.

I don't think you've read it yourself. Or if you did, you somehow missed the blatant religiousness of it all. Homosexuals and gypsies are not a burden on society, btw. I'm not sure where you'd get that idea. But they're not compatible with biblical morality either. The Nazis were religiously motivated to a large extent. That's just a fact. Assimilate it. It will do you good.

 

[Smoke]

categorical imperatives (ethics)

Ethics is possible without the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is one particular way of looking at ethics. In fact, I'd say that the categorical imperative leads to deficient ethics. The first example that springs to mind is Corrie ten Boom's sister betraying a Jewish woman to the Nazis because she thought it was always wrong to lie.

After spending far too much time reading Kant and others on ethics, I've come to agree with Bertrand Russell that theoretical ethics is superfluous. What we need is not rules of conduct; what we need is compassion and knowledge.

The quote is not from an author

 

[TheKnight]

I don't think you've read it yourself. Or if you did, you somehow missed the blatant religiousness of it all. Homosexuals and gypsies are not a burden on society, btw. I'm not sure where you'd get that idea. But they're not compatible with biblical morality either. The Nazis were religiously motivated to a large extent. That's just a fact. Assimilate it. It will do you good.

Having read Mein Kampf, I would say that the most you could infer from Hitler's mention of God is that it gave him only slight motivation. He did what he did because he believed he was making a better German society, not because he was trying to enforce his opinion of the will of God.

 

[Humanistheart]

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.

You seem to be equating power and morality. How would a god enforcing ethics through power be any different than a world leader forcing ethics on people? It wouldn't be. God would be a being if he existed, with his own perspective and opinions and theoritally the power to enforce said opinions on humans. The world leader would be a being with his own persepctive and opinions and the ability to force said opinions on others. No difference what so ever. The ability to force one's own preferences on others is not morality, it is just power.

 

[spacejanitor]

Ethics like Character is doing the right thing even when nobody is watching...

 

[Smoke]

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.

In that case, we must suspend all efforts to impose a universal morality until we have convincing evidence that there is a deity and we know what it wants.

 

[themadhair]

I have to chuckle at some of the posts on this thread. Essentially the OP is arguing that an authority is required for universal ethics (declaring god to be that authority in the process). Reason and experience are what I proposed as being suitable authorities.

The response to that was Dunemeister declaring Hitler to be the disproof my contention. Boy, did that miss the point. Hitler was an authority. Care to try again?

 

[Alceste]

Having read Mein Kampf, I would say that the most you could infer from Hitler's mention of God is that it gave him only slight motivation. He did what he did because he believed he was making a better German society, not because he was trying to enforce his opinion of the will of God.

Once more, for the record:

 

[Father Heathen]

Societies require sets of ethics and morals for the sake of order, stability, mutual benefit and rational self-interest. They don't require any sort of god, but can be derived from logic and innate empathy and compassion.