Morality

[Silver]

What grounds for morality is there without some type of god?

Man's need for survival. It dates back to primitive times. In order for the clan to survive, every member was needed. Therefore, it is was not in the good interest of the clan overall to harm or kill other clan members on a silly whim.

[littleendian]

What grounds for morality is there without some type of god?

Man's need for survival. It dates back to primitive times. In order for the clan to survive, every member was needed. Therefore, it is was not in the good interest of the clan overall to harm or kill other clan members on a silly whim.

Very good point, some even argue that you can find morality in non-humans (see here) and I'm sure those animals never heard of their savoir, Jesus of Nazareth.

Basically morality is a rule of behaviour, and wouldn't it make sense that e.g. elephants develop a rule of behaviour where nobody takes a dump in the drinking water of the herd? That's morality already, isn't it?

[paulpablo]

You can no longer be an atheist because otherwise life will just be one big vanity fair where anything goes . So you believe in god because if you don't then you will adapt an anything goes lifestyle?

What grounds for morality is there without some type of god?

Your brain, unless you have the type of brain that has no empathy or desire to be kind in anyway, a brain that has no values.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no dilemma. I think the OP is a red herring if I'm honest.

[Rahul]

From the naturalist point of view... on what grounds can they stand on to criticize the government/authority/actions of others, when all is simply relative?
We'd all state that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, right?

So crud, are you ready to drop the charade that you were raised in an atheist household and to use critical thinking?

You obviously have a very unsophisticated personal philosophy about human morality when it comes to being raised a supposed free thinker.

Your ploy was pretty thinly veiled from the get go. Now it's just getting painfully and blatantly apparent. We should only get 3 or 4 more theists using the same ploy for the remainder of this month. Then it starts all over for July.

[The Grand Nudger]

"ancient Roman society regarded empathy as a sign of a character flaw."
Yeah, that's what I've been saying, it seems to hinder survival of the individual not help it, I find it strange that we would evolve with negative traits.("negative" in the eyes of "survival of the fittest")

Being "too much" of anything is easy to paint as a hindrance to survival, it's true. "Too fast"? That means you're the guy out front, always the first target. "Too slow" back of the bus, easy pickins. Empathy combined with reciprocity in a group small enough to maintain the hold of both is a clear advantage- but it's also something that can be gamed. So, depending on the scenario, and your capacity, empathy -could- be a character flaw, sure. A flaw in the absolute? Good luck with that.

"The fittest" social creature is the one with the tightest bonds - if we're selecting on that single behavior. One social animal becomes equivalent to a dozen when each operates as part of the whole. Whatever tool helps to facilitate that is going to offer an advantage.

[Doubting Thomas]

Why is it so hard for Christians to bother googling secular humanism? I mean, it basically boils down to "treat others how you want to be treated, because that works out best for everybody." It's a simple matter that life is much better if we're not all running around robbing, raping, and killing each other. Why is it so hard for Christians to understand this simple concept that morals evolved from a simple need to get along with each other, and don't have to come from some deity?

[crud]

I take it all here agree that cultural relativism is a load of bullshit right?

Secular Humanism is the veiw I'd imagine most of you hold here?
What's the solution to David Hume's train of thought "that one can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?"

[rexbeccarox]

The view I hold is: don't be an asshole, and hopefully people will refrain from being assholes in return.

[crud]

I just want to try and clarify what this thread was about again though. (I'm not the greatest at articulating this kinda stuff.....)

- I'm not saying you have to believe in a god to be moral.. In fact, I stated that it appears to me that Atheist(as a whole) are more moral than the theists.
- I'm not denying evolution. And I obviously agree, that in one way or another we evolved some form of morality... and continue to do so.
- I'm not preaching any bible or religion
- I know that some culture/time/subjectivity obviously has a role to play, in what we deem right/wrong.

- I'm just simply asking (what appears to be a fair and rational question, at least to me) the philosophical question:
What does "morality" mean without some sort of mystical "essence" that transcends our own subjective lives?
Is this not a fair question?.. Stop just trying to prove a point or calling me a troll. I'm not the enemy.


Now, I'll try and explain why I don't think my question is as silly as you guys think:

- If morals are purely subjectivity(be it: personal,or family,or cultural,or nation ect.) this would mean that all moral values are ultimately equal.
That what we deem "right/wrong" is actually nothing more than a social construct; created by ourselves, or our family, or our nation, or whatever....
What we deem as "right/wrong" is no more relevant, than what our favorite color is.
- This is moral nihilism. plain and simple. if this is the case.. Then let's at least face the facts

- Secular humanism, or moral realism.. seems to be the only other choice
This is the view I've held all my life, and I'd take it almost all you guys would base your morals around it to.
This says, that we can have objective morality derived from science. (Sam Harris talks about this quite a bit)
this has lead me to "ought-is" problem. Science alone, does not deal with values, it can't tell us what we ought or ought not do. It can only state what "is".
It seems to fall straight back into subjectivism^..

But right/wrong do exist!... The genital manipulation of little girls in the name of Islam is wrong!
(and even though it appears I have no way of logically stating that), I will stand by that assertion %100.

So the conclusion I've come to is somewhat a "mystics" kind of postion