Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?

[Smoke]

Societies require sets of ethics and morals for the sake of order, stability, mutual benefit and rational self-interest.

Societies require order, stability, mutual benefit, and rational self-interest, perhaps, but a social contract can be had without any comprehensive theory of ethics.

It is not necessary, for instance, for a society to agree about the morality or immorality of adultery or cracking the knuckles. What is necessary to have some process by which a person who considers adultery or cracking the knuckles intolerable can be released from marriage to a person who insists on committing adultery or cracking his knuckles.

 

[Father Heathen]

Societies require order, stability, mutual benefit, and rational self-interest, perhaps, but a social contract can be had without any comprehensive theory of ethics.

It is not necessary, for instance, for a society to agree about the morality or immorality of adultery or cracking the knuckles. What is necessary to have some process by which a person who considers adultery or cracking the knuckles intolerable can be released from marriage to a person who insists on committing adultery or cracking his knuckles.

I didn't necessarily mean laws, but simply rather the interaction between people. Lying isn't illegal, for example, but it still has consequences and effects trust, reputation, character, etc.

 

[tomspug]

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.

Your implication seems to be that superior ethics, by means of some magical social evolution, will always triumph. In that case, you might as well call it God. The point of determining universality is that, despite what we THINK as individuals is OBVIOUSLY the "right" choice, we only come to that conclusion based on our own experience.

Ironically, what we tend to consider OBVIOUS and "right" comes from our religious upbringing.

 

[tomspug]

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

I believe what he should have said was "equal in justification", not power. Logically, we only have the ability to judge ourselves and therefore do not have the capacity to comprehend universal ethics.

For true universal ethics, the requirements would be: all-knowing and all-good. You need to have a universal perspective on every possible situation. For example, if someone said "marijuana is bad" but didn't realize that it has medicinal purposes. While in that person's limited perspective, their conclusion is logical. But based on a universal perspective, the conclusion is illogical.

So in the case of ethics, all ethical conclusions are inherently illogical without universal perspective. So, without a univesal perspective (although not necessarily a deity), one must question the value of ethics entirely. So, if there EXISTS such a thing as a universal perspective, what would be required for its existence?

 

[tomspug]

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.

I don't think it was Kant's intention to prove the existence of God, although Kant was inclined that way.

To me, God's purpose for interacting with humanity is not to dictate how to live but to provide us with the means, through revelation, to return to him. Ethics, in this perspective, has no role in this process other than the recognition of the broken individual. The purpose of "the law" is not to tell us what to do but to give us a picture of what ethics "should" be. Now, if revelation is a myth, then this makes no sense. But since revelation exists only in the realm of belief that is entirely up to your personal faith.

The reason I brought this topic up was to determine whether or not ethics was ultimately of any value to us without God or something like him. I would consider a moral government to be something like him (although I certainly don't agree with that), that is what we are starting to see in the Western World. Think about it: isn't any sort of social program authoritative ethics? If someone tells you that driving a Hummer is "bad", then they are replacing God, logically, whether or not he exists.

 

[tomspug]

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.

There doesn't seem to be any sort of logic behind the notion that "collective experience" is in any way sufficient to meet the requirements of ethics (other than wishful thinking). If human experience is always flawed, then a collective experience will be just as flawed, if not moreso! Isn't that why we have wars in the first place? The idea that we are moving towards something "better" in a social Darwinistic sense is, in my mind, illusory. Things have NEVER gotten better, and I doubt they ever will. There will always be war, poverty, and disease, no matter how many episodes of Star Trek we watch.

 

[tomspug]

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.

Haha, that's what I'm saying! (except for the part about finding convincing evidence for the existence of a deity, good luck with that)

 

[Caladan]

For true universal ethics, the requirements would be: all-knowing and all-good. You need to have a universal perspective on every possible situation. For example, if someone said "marijuana is bad" but didn't realize that it has medicinal purposes. While in that person's limited perspective, their conclusion is logical. But based on a universal perspective, the conclusion is illogical.

I do not know of any human or natural experience of all-knowing and all-good, I do realize it exists in humanity's theology and philosophy though, in other words this is an ideal.
Universal perspective usually helps, but it is never all-knowing or all-good, I believe it what makes you conscious of the opposite, if you have a tendency for a universal perspectives you distance yourself from absolute notions, and realize there is no absolute knowledge or information.

So in the case of ethics, all ethical conclusions are inherently illogical without universal perspective. So, without a univesal perspective (although not necessarily a deity), one must question the value of ethics entirely. So, if there EXISTS such a thing as a universal perspective, what would be required for its existence?

What makes you come to this conclusion? many societies of hunter gatherers who live outside the scope of the accepted morality and taboos of the world at large, have managed to maintain their social logic. in this we might recognize a new meaning for 'universal perspective', which we may refer to as 'intuition', or the wisdom inherited in our genes.

 

[tomspug]

Is 'institution' anything resembling a 'universal perspective'? Isn't the institution's state completely reliant on who is in power at the time? Once again, I question the notion that progress is always good. Or "peace" for that matter.

 

[Caladan]

If human experience is always flawed, then a collective experience will be just as flawed, if not moreso!

What makes an experience flawed? experience is simply an experience, we may see it as good or bad, but this is just our subjectivity.
our experience at the end of the day is all we have, and what we base our real understanding upon.

 

[Caladan]

Is 'institution' anything resembling a 'universal perspective'? Isn't the institution's state completely reliant on who is in power at the time? Once again, I question the notion that progress is always good. Or "peace" for that matter.

I said 'intuition' you should have gathered as much from my context, even if you read the word wrong.

 

[tomspug]

What makes an experience flawed? experience is simply an experience, we may see it as good or bad, but this is just our subjectivity.
our experience at the end of the day is all we have, and what we base our real understanding upon.

Exactly! The question is "what is the good of ethics" if experience is all that we should care about. I suppose to an existentialist, this isn't really that important of a question. But for those who yearn for or demand justice in the world, this is a serious question.

 

[Storm]

Things have NEVER gotten better, and I doubt they ever will.

Overthrowing the divine right of kings, moving past slavery, the growing acceptance of human rights, the institution of social aid... none of these are progress?

 

[tomspug]

I said 'intuition' you should have gathered as much from my context, even if you read the word wrong.

Wow, that was bad. Well, in that case, I would say that "intuition" is even WORSE! We may all have a conscience but we do a VERY bad job of listening to it. Ever talked to a die-hard conservative? I certainly wouldn't want a morality based on their intuitions...

 

[Caladan]

Exactly! The question is "what is the good of ethics" if experience is all that we should care about.

why separate our ethics from our experience? our ethics do not spring ex nihilio.

I suppose to an existentialist, this isn't really that important of a question. But for those who yearn for or demand justice in the world, this is a serious question.

people with substantial experience may have more empathy to see justice, they also have the wisdom to know that the world will not be swept by a revolution of justice.

 

[Caladan]

Wow, that was bad. Well, in that case, I would say that "intuition" is even WORSE! We may all have a conscience but we do a VERY bad job of listening to it. Ever talked to a die-hard conservative? I certainly wouldn't want a morality based on their intuitions...

I think you have completely ignored the context of my post.

 

[Caladan]

I am not really talking about intuition as you have simply stripped this word from my post.

I said this:

"What makes you come to this conclusion? many societies of hunter gatherers who live outside the scope of the accepted morality and taboos of the world at large, have managed to maintain their social logic. in this we might recognize a new meaning for 'universal perspective', which we may refer to as 'intuition', or the wisdom inherited in our genes."

In response to your post:

So in the case of ethics, all ethical conclusions are inherently illogical without universal perspective. So, without a univesal perspective (although not necessarily a deity), one must question the value of ethics entirely. So, if there EXISTS such a thing as a universal perspective, what would be required for its existence?

 

[tomspug]

Overthrowing the divine right of kings, moving past slavery, the growing acceptance of human rights, the institution of social aid... none of these are progress?

Last time I checked, all of those problems still exist, if not in the same historical form. We are blessed in America with a very good country, but we are not the world. So I would agree that America has experienced a kind of "progress", but the irony is that our country's government is based on a universal ethics that is, in our very legal documents, God-derived.

 

[Storm]

Progress is not instantaneous, but it does exist.

 

[tomspug]

I am not really talking about intuition as you have simply stripped this word from my post.

I said this:

"What makes you come to this conclusion? many societies of hunter gatherers who live outside the scope of the accepted morality and taboos of the world at large, have managed to maintain their social logic. in this we might recognize a new meaning for 'universal perspective', which we may refer to as 'intuition', or the wisdom inherited in our genes."

In response to your post:

OK, took me awhile, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by "illogical". I did not mean that human reasoning of morality is illogical, but that the argument FOR ethics is illogical.