Why be good?

[dyresand]

Well, that's a different question to the one you originally asked, and there's two important points to keep in mind here, but one really important thing we need to get out of the way before we can even get to that:

There is no objective morality in EITHER of our positions.

From a purely secular point of view, there is no objective morality; there is, however, an objective framework through which we can develop a situational, context-driven system of morality. You may have heard of it: it's called reality. You can use reality to develop a sense of what's good or bad, because in reality we are beings of a specific nature, who react in predictable ways to stimuli, and for whom that stimuli has specific ramifications; we generally feel pain universally, and it denotes a specific thing for us all, namely bodily damage. Therefore, since pain not only feels bad, but has a specific function biologically that is objectively bad for us, we can determine that causing pain is bad, as its effects are uniformly bad for humans, which we are also, and pragmatically we don't want to be hurt, nor do we want to live in a society that permits that. There are exceptions- vaccinations being an obvious one- but this is a situational ethical scenario, and there is an overriding benefit to vaccinations that renders the temporary pain useful. That's all you really need; a series of at times very basic observations about how we live and interact in reality, and an understanding that occasionally the rules we derive from that may conflict with each other, and that this happens in every ethical system. Morality isn't some incredibly complex thing that's a huge puzzle to figure out without god, it's just a lengthy process to fully encompass, full of ifs and buts and conditional statements. That doesn't mean the benefits of having it aren't obvious, if you take a moment to think about it.

Conversely, from a theistic standpoint there's no objective morality either. You've already asserted that god determines your morality, but god is a subject, by literal definition; if his opinions on morality are what determines its nature, then what you have is a subjective morality that you happen to have imbued with a lot of authority. But that doesn't make it objective, and calling it that inverts the meaning of both those terms, so why even bother using them, at that point?

Either way, the one with the thing closest to objective morality is the atheist, not the theist. But objectivity also doesn't matter, given that neither of us can produce a truly objective morality, since morality doesn't exist as some quantity independent of minds to apprehend it; it's just that I'm not willing to pretend that's otherwise, while theists generally are.

Well said and noted. I will consider whether the term "objective" has value in the discussion.

Object morals do not exist period. To say the bible has object morals is to throw out what morals we have evolved with over time like killing, killing is wrong why 1 it will affect others and 2 it does affect the person doing it psychologically and 3 killing is bad. 

ill leave you with 



Nietzche wrote:
"man needs to supplement reality by and ideal world of his own."

Nietzche wrote:
"indeed if one would explain abstrusest metaphysical claims of a philosopher really came about. it is always well (and wise) to ask first: at what morality does all this (does he) aim?"

[Huggy Bear]

Hardly.  I would admire him for telling me before I left him with that child.

I think you're mistaken, no one said anything about him telling you, you just "know" this particular man has these thoughts, it's a hypothetical scenario.

Here's a question for you Huggy,

Is is it condemnation of a man with small pox to prohibit him from entering a nursery full of unvacinated children?

Yes, by definition. When people are placed under quarantine, that's exactly what it is.

[Randy Carson]

I'm not asking whether atheists can be good people or whether they are good people. Despite much of the rudeness and foul language directed at me (and others) in this forum, it should be obvious that atheists may strive to be kind, tolerant, generous and respectful toward others. And they do this because they recognize that "right" and "wrong" behavior is real and not theoretical.

What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

If some feel that they have already answered, my apologies; however, I re-phrased my OP based on a quick scan of a few responses.

I will try to get through all of the posts as quickly as time permits. Sorry for the delay.

Sorry but that is not even remotely what you asked in the OP:

As I just posted to SteelCurtain, the questions are related, but I do regret the wording of the second post. I will stick to why for now.

If there is no God, then there is no hell; and if there is no hell, then there are no ultimate, eternal repercussions, good or bad, for how we live out our mortal lives. Of course, atheists insist that people should be "good without God."

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

You originally asked why be good if there are no god made consequences?  To which many of us replied, there certainly are consequences for bad behavior right here and now, both for society as whole, the victim, and the person behaving badly.  And that further, evolution has given us empathy among other useful things which makes us generally want to be good. [/quote]

Empathy is one useful emotion. Taking things by force can be useful, too. I see a lot of that in evolution and not so much in the former.

But more importantly, if you have read the posts, you will have seen many people question me regarding whether I am "good" simply because of fear of judgment of God. It's a fair question, but I want to turn it back now to ask: how many people drive under the speed limit to avoid the ticket? Quite a few. How many people do not shoplift to avoid being arrested? A lot. So, it seems to me, Jenny, that when a Christian points out that we behave in a manner that we believe is pleasing to God, atheists mock us for being afraid of hell. But atheists behave in a similar manner when they are motivated by the "consequences for bad behavior" as you call it.

We could invent objective standards like utility (the best outcome for the most people), selflessness (the best system for societal death under the weight of freeloaders I can imagine), might makes right (the ultimate authoritarian view), and so on.  Such standards can provide a framework for talking about what we should consider right and wrong, but they don't entirely explain what it is we actually do think is right and wrong.

Agreed,

For example consider incest.  Most people have very strong anti-incest reactions.  Visceral reactions.  If pressed most people will tell you that incest is wrong because of possible birth defects.  But in point of fact, unless there are recessive genes likely to produce birth defects shared between the couple, there aren't any real objective reasons why we shouldn't commit incest. And if one member of the couple in infertile, there is no reason why they shouldn't have sex.  Nor are most people mollified if the couple agrees to have one of them rendered infertile.  So at least some of what we consider right and wrong has to do with visceral reaction, not reasons and standards.

I think that evolution has endowed humans, like all social species, with some basic morals, mostly based upon empathy and survival of the species as a whole.   Beyond that it's all societal evolution.   Which is to say, it's not the least bit objective, except that moral systems that survive, survive.  A moral system that produces a working society that can defend itself lasts, one that doesn't doesn't. There is a reason we should not return to the morals of ancient Judea.  That is being tried in the Middle East with rather catastrophic results.  Religious states fair worse than secular ones.  It's less clear whether secular states where most people are religious fair worse than secular states where most people are atheist. 

Most but not all? In the course of evolution, we have evolved with very specific physical features such as two arms, two legs, five senses, and we walk upright, etc. Now, there are some people who are born without all of these things, but the overwhelming majority are. However, I'm not so sure that the number of people born with the same sense of selflessness matches the percentage of those born with our highly evolved physical traits, are you? In fact, don't parents have to spend an awful lot of time TEACHING their otherwise tyrannical toddlers to share their toys and not throw food on the floor when they are mad, etc? And if morality is learned, then is it merely a societal convention rather than a product of evolution (as has been claimed by NUMEROUS respondents in this thread)?

---

If there is no God, then there is no hell; and if there is no hell, then there are no ultimate, eternal repercussions, good or bad, for how we live out our mortal lives. Of course, atheists insist that people should be "good without God."

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

Both empathy and practicality.

A normal, well-balanced human vicariously feels pain at the suffering of another, and therefore tends to avoid inflicting it.

Practically, being a nice guy keeps one in the good graces of other humans with whom one must live and work.

Karma is not a metaphysical process, to me; it's a material phenomenon, and it can be summed up in three words: assholes make enemies.

How do you put this philosophy into practice, PT? Of all people, I find this most ironic coming from you.

How have you sought to avoid becoming my enemy over the past three weeks?

[Ravenshire]

In case you haven't learned by now, I like to make sure one position is clear...

So you can more easily misconstrue everything that's said...

[KUSA]

But more importantly, if you have read the posts, you will have seen many people question me regarding whether I am "good" simply because of fear of judgment of God. It's a fair question, but I want to turn it back now to ask: how many people drive under the speed limit to avoid the ticket? Quite a few. How many people do not shoplift to avoid being arrested? A lot. So, it seems to me, Jenny, that when a Christian points out that we behave in a manner that we believe is pleasing to God, atheists mock us for being afraid of hell. But atheists behave in a similar manner when they are motivated by the "consequences for bad behavior" as you call it.

Atheists are motivated by the consequences for bad behavior such as a speeding ticket because we know that it is a real thing.

I'm not concerned about make believe consequences for make believe sins.

[Randy Carson]

the fact that we can live in relative peace, in some parts of the world at least, I think shows we are generally "good".

Rob-

Are you too young to remember what Hitler tried to do to England during the blitz? Good grief, man, how can you as an Englishman speak of "relative peace" when A) we Yanks have had to come over and save your butts twice and B) the world is poised for round three as we speak?

Russia wants the Ukraine and more.
China is building an island in disputed waters in order to establish a military base upon it.
N. Korea could go nuclear on S. Korea anytime the "highly evolved" leader of that country orders it.
Iran will attack Israel the first chance it gets...you can bet on that if not on a tub of sweets.
ISIS will attack Europe and the US as soon as possible.
And here in the US, we're just one or two more unarmed black teens shot and killed by cops away from all-out civil war.

Do you really think we're "generally good"? And in each of the cases I listed above, why shouldn't the aggressors move against those they perceive to be weaker?

That's how evolution works.

G'night, everyone. Great discussion. Thanks.

[SteelCurtain]

That's how evolution works.

No, it's not. And you know that. You're just continuing to use the straw man you have a chance at winning an argument with.

[Ravenshire]

I've been watching Randy straw man his way through this thread and I have to say that the morality of the religious is empty. The unbeliever who lives a moral life is far more moral than the believer who lives a moral life because the unbeliever does so, not to gain reward or avoid punishment in some mythic afterlife, but because it's what they truly believe is right. The morality of the buy-bull (or any other holey book) is the morality of the carrot and the stick, without a carrot or a stick.

No, Randy, morals are not absolute. They are very subjective. Further, what was moral yesterday may not be moral today and what is immoral today may be moral tomorrow. Morals are a work in progress. We've not gotten it perfect yet, nor are we likely to. Still, it's what we have despite your pious claim of the absolute morals handed down by your gawd. In truth, the only absolute in this whole thread is the bullshit spouted about the morality of the buy-bull or the morality of gawd.

[dyresand]

the fact that we can live in relative peace, in some parts of the world at least, I think shows we are generally "good".

Rob-

Are you too young to remember what Hitler tried to do to England during the blitz? Good grief, man, how can you as an Englishman speak of "relative peace" when A) we Yanks have had to come over and save your butts twice and B) the world is poised for round three as we speak?

Russia wants the Ukraine and more.
China is building an island in disputed waters in order to establish a military base upon it.
N. Korea could go nuclear on S. Korea anytime the "highly evolved" leader of that country orders it.
Iran will attack Israel the first chance it gets...you can bet on that if not on a tub of sweets.
ISIS will attack Europe and the US as soon as possible.
And here in the US, we're just one or two more unarmed black teens shot and killed by cops away from all-out civil war.

Do you really think we're "generally good"? And in each of the cases I listed above, why shouldn't the aggressors move against those they perceive to be weaker?

That's how evolution works.  

G'night, everyone. Great discussion. Thanks.

ISIS is not that strong to attack Europe or the US at most they convince 2 or 3 morons to do something even then NSA is like bitch please we know what you are planning on doing.
N. Korea they seem relatively peaceful.
Russia they aren't exactly something we should worry about we still have the cold war mentality that we need to give up, all in all they are in no position to fuck with us looking at 
how be economically they are currently doing. 
China it doesn't really matter either they are literally top dog they could literally take over America they own us well not the country but in a way they do own us literally. Why else made in china things are so cheap and well now being more expensive. Also they have a bigger military and are advancing as well. Their latest tank MBT 3000 and were still using Abrams yeah.. we need a new MBT. 
As far as race thing goes cops shooting unarmed black people its always been a fucking thing. Racial biased has always been a issue no one is admitting it but it is true. 

[Jenny A]

Hardly.  I would admire him for telling me before I left him with that child.

I think you're mistaken, no one said anything about him telling you, you just "know" this particular man has these thoughts, it's a hypothetical scenario.

You're missing the point. Unless he acts or tells you, you would never just know. So? Do you want to know? How the condemnation.

Here's a question for you Huggy,

Is is it condemnation of a man with small pox to prohibit him from entering a nursery full of unvacinated children?

Yes, by definition. When people are placed under quarantine, that's exactly what it is.
[/quote]

And is it a sin to have small pox?