Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?

[tomspug]

Progress is not instantaneous, but it does exist.

It exists in that societal wrongs can be corrected, but that doesn't mean that humans themselves are changing. All it would take is for America to lose its power and money, and its positive impact on the world would significantly diminish (which is why you have fervent diehard nationalists afraid of everything un-American). Does such a thing as "progress" exist? I suppose its theoretical, but it would require some manner of visible growth. If you consider industrialism, globalism and socialism to be progress, then I would consider those clear signs of growth.

 

[Caladan]

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.

OK I might not be keeping track as well, can you expand

the argument FOR ethics is illogical.

 

[Storm]

It exists in that societal wrongs can be corrected, but that doesn't mean that humans themselves are changing. All it would take is for America to lose its power and money, and its positive impact on the world would significantly diminish (which is why you have fervent diehard nationalists afraid of everything un-American). Does such a thing as "progress" exist? I suppose its theoretical, but it would require some manner of visible growth. If you consider industrialism, globalism and socialism to be progress, then I would consider those clear signs of growth.

I do.

The thing about progress, Tom, is that we have to work for it. People do, and the effects have been seen. It's hard, and it's painful, and it's slow, but it is happening. We have a unique capacity to change ourselves, for better or worse.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I agree that you in America are blessed with a very good country, and I also agree that you are not the world. Others are also blessed with very good countries, some not as ethically run as the United Utates, and some much more ethically run. In terms of ethics the U.S. falls somewhere in the middle.

And I am no historian or legal expert, but I think it is pretty much agreed your legal documents were written by humans. No “God” was needed to write them.

All it would take is for America to lose its power and money, and its positive impact on the world would significantly diminish (which is why you have fervent diehard nationalists afraid of everything un-American).

I am not convinced that America has a positive impact on the world. Clearly in the last decade I think its impact has been very negative, this may be turning around but it is too early to tell. And if the U.S. were to lose its power and money (I don’t think they have as much power as they think they have, and money? What money?) the rest of the world would continue to progress just fine.

Your chauvinism is showing.

 

[Copernicus]

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...

These comments and your claim that the argument for ethics is inherently "illogical" suggest that you are missing the overarching theme of God's "law", which is the betterment of the human race. If our ultimate goal is to survive and prosper--a goal that we share with other living beings--then logic dictates that we should do things to strengthen ourselves and the society that protects us. Gods reflect human values because they are human constructs. So Christianity and atheist humanism overlap considerably in terms of what constitutes ethical behavior. That is because we are mostly compelled to think that God is on our side. He would therefore have us do what it makes sense to do if he did not exist.

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.

Gods provide facile answers to our questions. Because Christians see God as a sufficient answer to the question of why morality exists, they do not look very hard for alternative explanations. We are social animals. Every social structure requires rules of conduct that govern the behavior of its individual members. God is part of that social structure. He is at the pinnacle of authority, so he is the one who is imagined to be in charge. In reality, it is just the collective whole that works out the solutions over time and devises mechanisms for enforcing them. When religious terrorists develop a non-humanist ethics that drives them to threaten the larger society they are embedded in (e.g. Christian anti-abortion murderers or Muslim jihadists bent on holy war), the Christians and Muslims (and everyone else) who don't buy into their delusions look to secular authorities for protection against them.

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.

You've got it backwards. Gods follow our morality, not vice versa. That is what makes them behave like humanists most of the time. We use them to enforce rules of social interaction that we think make us and our society stronger and richer. In the end, that is why someone like President Obama can turn to his fellow Christians and say that they must provide secular bases for laws. In his mind, God is as much of a humanist as your friendly neighborhood atheist.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Heh - you think our "collective experience", as communicated by our collective empirical knowledge (science) and all of our human literature (including the Bible) is insufficient grounds for building a system of ethics? Where are you going to get your "revelations" from your god, apart from the writings of your fellow humans?

It makes me smile for someone who thinks ethics come from God to say my reality-based system of ethics is built on "wishful thinking".

 

[tumbleweed41]

It exists in that societal wrongs can be corrected, but that doesn't mean that humans themselves are changing. All it would take is for America to lose its power and money, and its positive impact on the world would significantly diminish (which is why you have fervent diehard nationalists afraid of everything un-American). Does such a thing as "progress" exist? I suppose its theoretical, but it would require some manner of visible growth. If you consider industrialism, globalism and socialism to be progress, then I would consider those clear signs of growth.

What is impressive is societies that ethically progress despite Americas meddling.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I say that ethics are definitely meaningful without God. And also, I think it is wrong to be ethical just because you fear punishment from a deity if you are not ethical.

 

[Quiddity]

It's as meaningful as the person who reads and interprets it. It turns into an ethics without form or purpose.

For me, man is a rational animal. It therefore is our ethical obligation to do those things which are in accord with right reason.

Now, of course, if you don't believe in a Creator, you can't do ethics this way, or not for very long, because there's no reason to think that anything is purposed for anything anyhow. But then if you don't believe in a Creator, it becomes very difficult to do ethics of any sort, IMO.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's as meaningful as the person who reads and interprets it. It turns into an ethics without form or purpose.

For me, man is a rational animal. It therefore is our ethical obligation to do those things which are in accord with right reason.

Now, of course, if you don't believe in a Creator, you can't do ethics this way, or not for very long, because there's no reason to think that anything is purposed for anything anyhow. But then if you don't believe in a Creator, it becomes very difficult to do ethics of any sort, IMO.

Perhaps you should first explain why an invisible sky daddy is a prerequisite for having purpose. Logic and compassion, and cause and effect still exist regardless.

 

[McBell]

Is Ethics Meaningful Without God?

Seems to me that it is more meaningful when a persons ethics are not merely the actions of a person who fears punishments and hopes for reward.

 

[LuisDantas]

I say that ethics are definitely meaningful without God. And also, I think it is wrong to be ethical just because you fear punishment from a deity if you are not ethical.

Perfect. Frubal.

 

[nrg]

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?

You reason. You figure out what sort of society you want and then figure out, rationally, how you should act in order to get there.

There are lots of useful tools for that, such as game theory. The strategy "tit-for-tat" is similiar to how most people act in the way they see moral.

Sure, you will need alot of observations in order to acquire hard data on what you should do, but thankfuully alot of people have allready gotten a grasp of it so most cultures in existance are based around acting kindly and cooperation. That's not the case when we look at our closest cousins, the chimpanzees. Most of the time, the stronger males hog the food and shelter and doesn't think about what's best for the group. I guess that for evolutionary purposes we reasoned ourselves into the moral concept we have today so we can work together, and since it's the result of memetics it doesn't work flawlessly.