Morality versus afterlife

[ktrap]

This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

I think this question is half baked.  The question is trying to solidify the non-existence of God.  Again another dumb atheist strategy and reasoning.

Morality (or more precise moral behavior) is based an individual's decision and/or action which the individual differentiates as right or wrong and at times the individual knowing what the consequences can be of his/her action will behave in a particular way.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then you most likely don't believe in cosmic justice and most likely you don't need to be accountable for your actions. 

Therefore, why even consider morals, just behave out of whim, tantalize your senses and let your mind run wild!!!

It's just like Dawkins says, "Why does God care who I sleep with?" 

Well, let us assume God doesn't care.  If you are in relationship and at the same time have an affair then you have broken the trust and hurt the individual.

Based on your thought process there is no accountability to it, because there is no afterlife and no cosmic justice.

This differentiates theists and atheists. Theists wants to be accountable for their actions and allow God to hand down justice.  While atheists want to avoid this, because it hinders them from behaving in manners that would make them feel accountable to their actions.

[Cecelia]

No, Theists don't want to be accountable for their actions. They want to be forgiven for their transgressions ultimately. Even if they don't deserve it. They want to be forgiven simply for believing in an invisible man who allegedly inspired an alleged true story featuring talking animals, various things that break the laws of physics, and who supposedly killed more people than Hitler.

I think this quote is very applicable:

"Morality is doing right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

[A Raggedly Bohemian Radical]

We know there is no God, as do the heads of all these religions who aren't really looking at the afterlife but the power over people in the here and now.

If the flocks who sincerely believe in God finally forfeited what they can't be so sure about, I don't know if they would still believe, but in the here and now, they, like everyone else of sound thinking, should be able to say that we know enough to know that there is no reason to make this supernatural leap to a celestial dictator. They are fools to themselves.

[GrandizerII]

Therefore, why even consider morals, just behave out of whim, tantalize your senses and let your mind run wild!!!

Because morals are about cooperation and harmony with others, and about enhancing one's self. Why does everything have to be God or accountability when it comes to espousing morals?

[Brian37]

No, Theists don't want to be accountable for their actions.  They want to be forgiven for their transgressions ultimately.  Even if they don't deserve it.  They want to be forgiven simply for believing in an invisible man who allegedly inspired an alleged true story featuring talking animals, various things that break the laws of physics, and who supposedly killed more people than Hitler.

I think this quote is very applicable:

"Morality is doing right no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

I really hate platitudes. Life is messy, even for the atheist and nothing is either/or. 

"Accountable for their actions", not that simple. I would say the comic book excuses make no sense. But even without them it isn't "you are always responsible" or "never responsible" but "case by case". It is true as individuals we can take steps to avoid making mistakes on our own, but at the same time it is also true that others can have an effect on us no matter what we do.

And it isn't the idea that forgiveness is bad. I am no fan of revenge. But I certainly am no fan of holding grudges. The comic book version of forgiveness as the bible portrays is vile. It takes away my autonomy. I think it is ok to forgive. You can still part company and forgive without having to deal with that person again. But it is still up to you, not a third party.

I would say your last sentence is more in tune with our natural behavior and we don't need comic book excuses to do the right thing. But it still is not a perfect world in any case.

[ktrap]

Irrational

Therefore, why even consider morals, just behave out of whim, tantalize your senses and let your mind run wild!!!

Because morals are about cooperation and harmony with others, and about enhancing one's self. Why does everything have to be God or accountability when it comes to espousing morals?

 Even if you believe God does not exist, do you still feel sorry for your bad actions or bad thoughts?  No, because there are no consequences to them, which means you don't want to be accountable for them.   I am not talking about extreme immoral behavior like murder or rape, etc.  There are laws for that.  I am talking about behavior where society has not put laws in place, like adultery, etc.  Actions that can hurt someone (verbal/emotional) but  really you are not going to be punished by the legal system.   Do you feel sorry?  How do you repent? An apology does not suffice !!

[ktrap]

No, Theists don't want to be accountable for their actions.  They want to be forgiven for their transgressions ultimately.  Even if they don't deserve it.  They want to be forgiven simply for believing in an invisible man who allegedly inspired an alleged true story featuring talking animals, various things that break the laws of physics, and who supposedly killed more people than Hitler.

I think this quote is very applicable:

"Morality is doing right no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

 HAHA !! LOL!! That is your misunderstanding about it.  Asking for forgiveness, whether it be with the individual or God, does not excuse the punishment you will receive.  Yes, I agree a lot of religions (or more precise the religious leaders) try to state that God has forgiven you for your sins.  But that is not true at all. 

Everyone (including myself) will be punished and rewarded based on our actions, no one gets free pass

[orangebox21]

As I've said more than once, nothing about the definition of moral utilitarianism, or anything I've said....has anything to do with your ability to see boogeymen.  Either you can come down from that frenzy and have a discussion or you can't.  Another poster has already given you the means to purge your irrational fears.  You merely need to ask the targets of the genocide how well they feel their interests are being pursued.

We can have a discussion as soon as you provide references that support your definition of moral utilitarianism as excluding the taking of human life even if doing so will maximize wellbeing.

Orange: Thanks for your reply. I don't see any point in continuing. Clearly, to you, what God says is "morality". (Or more accurately, what a specific group of people say he says.) That has nothing in common with what I call morality, so we're just not talking about the same thing.

Where in my definition of 'objective morality' did I say that what God says is morality?  Do a search on 'objective vs. subjective morality' within another section of this forum.  You'll find that there are non-theists who argue for an objective morality.

I'll say this though, that's the first time anyone has event attempted to give an example of "objective morality" in action. So credit for that.

Thank you.

However, what we have here, from our point of view, is an arbitrary list of things to do and not to do, decided by a book.

I hear this a lot.  What do you mean by arbitrary?  Are you claiming that when God gave His commandments He did so on a whim and without reason?  Are you claiming that He didn't have a reason for telling a person to not murder another person, and that there is not any beneficial effect to obeying a command like that?

That's just one possible method of morality out of an infinite amount.

A statement that is equally critical of your moral framework.

And it's been subjectively chosen by those who follow it.

Also, and you admit, equally critical of your moral framework.

What I consider important for morality is entirely different.

Yet, falls within your own criticism.

So as morality is not a well defined term, there can't be just one "objective morality" without defining morality to simply be that thing,

A little more explanation would be helpful here for me to understand your position.

unless you can somehow demonstrate one system to be "better" than another.

What do you mean by better?  Are you speaking of utility?

Before you can even begin to attempt something like that, you'd need to agree what the goals of morality are. And already, we disagree.

Why are the goals of morality the justifier of the validity [truth value claims] of morality?

And I'd say any arbitrary system like the above is entirely useless in practice, except for the purpose of trying to please the character in the book.

You can address this given my comment from above, namely the implication that following the command to not murder is somehow useless in practice except for the purpose of trying to please God.

If morality, as in Orange's case, only serves to make a character in a book happy,

This is an unsubstantiated assertion that only you have made.  Would the world be better if there was no murder?  Yes.  Would the world be better if people were content with what they had and didn't covet?  Yes.  Would the world be better if no one was a false witness?  Yes.

There is just one use of an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts to be used as morality, and that would be for someone who has literally no idea what to do. Maybe a psycopath who has no empathy, or someone who has never interacted with other humans before. An alien, even. Someone who wants to fit into our society, but to who killing someone seems as arbitrary an action as helping someone. For a person in this position, a well designed list could at least be a starting point. But no lists can ever be a fully comprehensive "objective morality", unless they are so simple as to be very limited in scope.

You've redefined "objective morality" as a list of arbitrary do's and don'ts that would only be useful for a psychopath or someone who has never interacted with other humans before.  How long does that scarecrow take to burn?  Objective morality is a morality that is universally applicable and not subject to a person's feelings or opinions.  

I didn't say that you needed to agree that his standard is good for you but rather his standard is good for him.  To remain consistent the moral autonomist cannot judge another man's morality as universally wrong, only wrong for himself but right for the other.  This is how moral autonomy functions.  When faced with the question:  "Is Christianity moral?" the moral autonomist must answer:  "yes and no."  It depends solely upon who you ask.  The answer is yes for those who decide yes, and no for those who decide no.

And? This is practically a problem how? I am still justified in saying that I disagree.

That is true within the context.  The problem arises when a 'moral argument' is made against God.  A moral autonomist can never be justified in saying that God did something wrong, he/she can only say, "I disagree."

"Morality is doing right no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

How is what's right determined?

Why does everything have to be God or accountability when it comes to espousing morals?

Because morals are not solely about cooperation and harmony with others.  The lawbreaker is accountable to the lawgiver.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, let us assume God doesn't care.  If you are in relationship and at the same time have an affair then you have broken the trust and hurt the individual.

IOW you're perfectly capable of deciding for yourself how to act, and why, huh.

@orange.  
Let's not pretend that we weren't talking genocide just a minute ago.  Get your shit together.  OFC moral utilitarianism allows for the taking of human life.  That's a pretty standard feature of any practical moral system...don't you think?  Otherwise we'd have to call every person who's ever defended themselves or another immoral.  Does moral utilitarianism proscribe killing people "to maximize wellbeing", no. Mostly because killing those people isn't something that's going to "maximize their wellbeing"...as has been explained to you more than once.  If you think that killing someone (or committing genocide, ffs) -will- maximize their wellbeing, or even the collective wellbeing, then by all means...make that case.

You're a bold faced liar, ofc, pretending that the nonsense you're peddling now has anything to do with the definition of moral utilitarianism, my comments...or even your own previous comments.  This little exchange has damaged my opinion of you greatly.  The things that's truly disappointing in all of this..is that it isn't as though there -aren't- legitimate criticisms of moral utilitarianism.  It's not as if it's magically free of problems or edge cases.....but why talk about any of -that- when you can go from zero-to-batshit crazy directly, huh?

[robvalue]

Some of the responses I've had have left me feeling rather queasy. I think I'm going to stop doing these kinds of threads.

I don't for a second believe that some people would actually act the way they say they would, but the fact they are proud to state that they would makes me sad. This isn't an argument, by the way. It's an observation and an emotional response.