Wednesday, February 3, 2010
thought of the day.390
'If God does not exist, everything is permitted' so say many Christians. Really? Maybe they know themselves and are admitting that without the fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward they would be immoral, law-breaking hooligans. Does that mean all the atheists who manage to be good neighbors and citizens are just better people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
If God does not exist, what is the basis for ethics? Society? Individuals?
One society says same-sex marriage is wrong, another says it isn't. Who's right?
One individual holds that murder is wrong, the next individual happens to be a serial killer and kills for pleasure. Who's right?
Right and wrong are human ideas. What is right and wrong depends on the person and the situation. Sometimes it is right to steal, right to lie, right to murder, etc. The law, made by man, and the courts, judged by man, determine who is right. No gods are needed.
But that degenerates into relativism. If man decides what is right and wrong, even based on person and situation, how do we know he'll choose right? He won't always (which is why our court system is so screwed up!) There's no overarching law. It's like I said. One individual holds that murder is wrong...
The fact is, we live in a relativistic world. Everything is relative to something else. It obviously doesn’t require an overarching supernatural standard of morality for humans to go about their business. Just requires a group of people to come to agreement on what the standard (laws) for that group at that time should be. Less official shaping of behavior happens on a constant basis during our encounters with others. We are all shaping each other through our interactions. Smiling to encourage behavior, shunning to show disapproval, etc.
You say “If man decides what is right and wrong, even based on person and situation, how do we know he'll choose right?” Obviously, even when people believe in absolute truth/bible/god they still often don’t choose right so I am not following you here.
In a society, the goal is for everyone to get along and be happy. It matters little if one believes the morals/laws come from man or a god, what is important is that people be good neighbors/citizens. The problem with tying morality to a god is if/when that belief erodes the basis for good behavior erodes. Better to tie morality to respect for self and others.
Sorry. I meant if it's left to man to judge what is right and wrong. If man is the judge, inventing the laws, whatever, then how do you know that they're right? But I suppose it doesn't even matter. There is no "ultimately" right. It only matters on whatever it is we decide right now, and in fifty years they can change their mind.
“But I suppose it doesn't even matter. There is no "ultimately" right. It only matters on whatever it is we decide right now, and in fifty years they can change their mind.”
Exactly! :)
That explains how on earth people consider murder okay, I guess.
And in reality, this just proves the point that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted". Fifty years ago homosexuality was frowned upon, and now look at it. If God does not exist, there is no ultimate right. It's right or wrong based on what society generally feels like.
Like I initially said, many millions of atheists obviously have no problem behaving quite admirably without a god. Human laws/consequences are what keep people in line, not a god.
But the point is, without God, then everything is ultimately permitted. If most of society decides something, then it's right. Thus anything that society decides is right, and that leaves the door open to any sort of behavior.
Yep. Whether you and I like it or not. We don’t get to pick reality.
...So then what's the point of your blog post? The quote, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" is thus true. So it doesn't mean that "without the fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward they would be immoral, law breaking hooligans", it means just what it says: If you take God out of the equation, you take ultimate morality out too.
No, you are mistaken. Laws do not permit everything, whether or not any gods exist. Even in groups without formal laws, isolated tribes for instance or even tribes of apes, not everything is permitted. There are consequences for actions meted out by the group.
Right, but moral standards change over time. Evolve, if you will. Again, homosexuality was not considered okay 100 years ago. Now, the ones who aren't okay are the ones who speak out against it. So in a billion years or however long it is the world's been around, and in a billion years to come or however long the world's gonna stay, it can be assumed that pretty much everything will be permissible. Even if "everything" is too broad a statement, you can assume that a great, huge, very large deal of things will be considered okay.
Doubtful. Our circle of compassion is growing as the decades go by but I don’t think we will ever think it permissible for people to steal from us, hurt our children, destroy our home, kill our spouse etc. Do you?
I don't think so, but how do you know that when we were all primitive Neanderthals or whatever that it wasn't allowed? He's got a better dwelling than me. I squish his dwelling, now I've got the better one. Maybe before we evolved our nice handy code of ethics it was different.
Also, if there's no ultimate ethics, there's really no way to be sure that wouldn't be considered acceptable. Take communism. Communists believe that they're the next improvement on society, and they have proletariat morality as a code of ethics - you do whatever you need to to further communism. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, genocide is all OK as long as it gets us closer to our happy perfect world.
At one point in our evolution we were of course not moral creatures at all. We were no different than apes today. But that does not mean all was permissible. Just as it is with apes, if one tries to mate with the dominant male’s females, watch out!
“Also, if there's no ultimate ethics, there's really no way to be sure that wouldn't be considered acceptable.” Yep. As I have said again and again, we don’t get to determine reality.
“Take communism. Communists believe that they're the next improvement on society, and they have proletariat morality as a code of ethics - you do whatever you need to to further communism. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, genocide is all OK as long as it gets us closer to our happy perfect world.”
Christians did the same for Christianity. Ever hear of pious fraud? Jews murdered and committed genocide and did so in the name of their god.
People can always justify their actions no matter what they are. We are master justifiers.
“Also, if there's no ultimate ethics, there's really no way to be sure that wouldn't be considered acceptable.” Yep. As I have said again and again, we don’t get to determine reality.
I have then proved my point. If there is no God, everything is permissible.
When you say that without God everything would be permissible who are you suggesting it would be permissible to? Would it be permissible to you if your neighbor lit your house on fire? Of course not.
Well, how do you define permissible?
If my neighbor has lit my house on fire, sure, I won't like it, but how do I prove that it's wrong? What do I go to to point out that lighting my house on fire is a wrong thing to do?
You don’t have to prove it is wrong. You can’t prove that it is wrong. It isn’t wrong in and of itself. It just is.
But you don’t like it and that is enough for you to seek justice. Lucky for you, most all other people don’t like their houses set on fire either so they come to your aid in the form of laws, courts, etc.
So our system of ethics boils down to "it just is"? Great method there.
My point is that actions (burning a house down) are void of meaning until we assign them meaning. The act itself is just an act. An act cannot be right or wrong in and of itself. That is reality whether you like it or not.
I never suggested out system of ethics is based on “it just is”. My system of ethics is based on respecting life and the right of each life to live to it’s fullest ability. Each person’s is a bit different or at least they justify different things within a common ethical framework.
But you just said, and I quote, "You don’t have to prove it is wrong. You can’t prove that it is wrong. It isn’t wrong in and of itself. It just is."
I am saying that actions—a tree falling, a house burning, the birth of a child, rain, drought, war, whatever—do not contain within themselves meaning of any kind.
We have to determine the meaning/ rightness or wrongness. We do this by projecting our sense of morality on the action. Luckily, we agree enough on the basics we can make laws that help protect you from having your house burned down.
"We have to determine the meaning/ rightness or wrongness."
My point exactly. There is no God? It's up to us to decide...thus, everything is permittable.
Post a Comment