NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly I need to say that this was originally a question posed on the superb Liberty Forum website (www.libertyforum.org) perhaps the best place I have seen on the net for reasoned discussion and free speech - don't be put off by the anti-semitism, US-bashing or conspiracy theories; many are just playing devils advocate which does produce very good debates on nearly any topic possible (US military weather sysytems being a neat one). If one ideology defines this site it truly is free speech. Reccomend.

Any way, we had a very good discussion on the relationship between God and morality.

Essentially my question to this forum is whther people think God is needed to justify morality?

Is an evil act evil because God says so? Or is it evil because it is evil, thus allowing the possibility that God (in his infinite omnipotency) could commit acts of evil? Indeed is the wrathful God of the old testament evil by comparison to the Godhead Jesus in the new testament?

Personally I think morality is utterly justifiable without God, spirituality, reward or punishment - and even worse, that the attributing of morlaity to the various words of God (Torah, Bible, Koran, Raelian pamphlet, etc) is in fact detrimental to morality, often causing evil when the 'means justify the ends'.

What say you?

It's not. We allready have the law, and the law has nothing to do with god.

No.

No, because otherwise atheists would all necessarily be amoral, and they aren't.

I think that moral absolutism, as opposed to moral relativity, is probably dependant on God though.

When you think about it, 'good' and 'bad' do not exist unless there is a standard. If morality is not fixed, then morality doesn't really exist outside the human mind. Society can define law, but law is only order, and not morality. So long as a society says that something is good or bad it is good or bad. To look at an example, Nazi Germany killed six million Jews. This is wrong defined by our standard of morality, but to Hitler's standard of morality, it was right. Many people in that country believed it to be okay because the Fuhrer said it was, and so they committed those atrocities. You could say it was brainwashing, but how could you ever say that Western standards that oppose murder or rape is not brainwashing. People only believe what their society tells them to. Morality, if it is not defined by a divine being which is omniscient, simply cannot exist because it is subjective. In Western society, murder is wrong. A murderer, when committing a murder, does not think that what he is doing is wrong, or else he would not do it. Since morality can only exist within human parameters, who is to say that his idea of morality is superceded by the morality of the society? The majority is not always right, once again proven by Nazi Germany and countless other societies throughout history. If there is not a constant morality, then the idea of morality is just a sham invented to keep control over and brainwash the masses.

It's not. We allready have the law, and the law has nothing to do with god.


BINGO! You win a cookie!

Heck no. Otherwise the world would be screwed.

It's not. We allready have the law, and the law has nothing to do with god.

Depends on what law you're referring to... secular law has nothing to do with it... but church law apparently does, even according to the Bible.

It's true that we need consensus on a definition on what good and evil are, in order to set the paradigm of law. I think that generally, cultures and individuals are very much in agreement as to what is desireable behaviour and what is not. Secularly speaking, love for humanity is the prime motivator of all good behaviour. People being the social animals they are, require some degree of acceptance by their own kind. Even a person who has committed the most ghastly crime will rationalise that, despite their guilt, they are a 'good' person. To hold a self-image that you are a 'bad' person is self-destructive psychopathology.

I don't believe that morality is dependent on a traditional concept god. Traditionally speaking, one might say that god is within those who accept him, and follow the dogma of a preferred faith, therefore their morality is dependent on this acceptance. Atheists and agnostics are capable of morality. Individuals who are classified by religious groups as 'spiritually lost' are also capable of morality. I think that argues succinctly that morality is not dependent on a traditional construct of god.

That said, if I am true to my personal definition of god, then I would say yes. The way I rationalised my construct of god, my belief in science, and my buddhist tendencies, was to conceptualise god as the energy within every atom, and within every space between those atoms. That the manifestation of life requires the pressence of energy indicates to me that all things contain this god energy. Morally speaking, this god-energy is not an old man with a white beard and a smiting-stick. Morally speaking, god-energy is the intangible spirit that moves and changes when we think and act. We cannot escape its pressence anymore than we can escape the atoms that comprise our bodies. It is not a directive force, but it motivates our actions through the sensation of goodness/badness. When we feel the buzz of love, that is the buzz of god-energy. Likewise if we feel the throb of guilt, that is god-energy. My construct of god doesn't own us like a traditional god, doesn't require subjugation or dogma, but IS us, and everything around us. If I was to answer the question using this construct of god, I would say that everything is dependent on god. My construct of god is beyond our human comprehension, and it quietly revvs in the background of our existence, like white noise.

Firstly I need to say that this was originally a question posed on the superb Liberty Forum website (www.libertyforum.org) perhaps the best place I have seen on the net for reasoned discussion and free speech - don't be put off by the anti-semitism, US-bashing or conspiracy theories; many are just playing devils advocate which does produce very good debates on nearly any topic possible (US military weather sysytems being a neat one). If one ideology defines this site it truly is free speech. Reccomend.

Any way, we had a very good discussion on the relationship between God and morality.

Essentially my question to this forum is whther people think God is needed to justify morality?

Is an evil act evil because God says so? Or is it evil because it is evil, thus allowing the possibility that God (in his infinite omnipotency) could commit acts of evil? Indeed is the wrathful God of the old testament evil by comparison to the Godhead Jesus in the new testament?

Personally I think morality is utterly justifiable without God, spirituality, reward or punishment - and even worse, that the attributing of morlaity to the various words of God (Torah, Bible, Koran, Raelian pamphlet, etc) is in fact detrimental to morality, often causing evil when the 'means justify the ends'.

What say you?

If morality is dependent on God, I'd rather go to Hell. I cant stand the idea that I'm only here for $DIETY's edification. Fuck that.

When you think about it, 'good' and 'bad' do not exist unless there is a standard. If morality is not fixed, then morality doesn't really exist outside the human mind. Society can define law, but law is only order, and not morality. So long as a society says that something is good or bad it is good or bad. To look at an example, Nazi Germany killed six million Jews. This is wrong defined by our standard of morality, but to Hitler's standard of morality, it was right. Many people in that country believed it to be okay because the Fuhrer said it was, and so they committed those atrocities. You could say it was brainwashing, but how could you ever say that Western standards that oppose murder or rape is not brainwashing. People only believe what their society tells them to. Morality, if it is not defined by a divine being which is omniscient, simply cannot exist because it is subjective. In Western society, murder is wrong. A murderer, when committing a murder, does not think that what he is doing is wrong, or else he would not do it. Since morality can only exist within human parameters, who is to say that his idea of morality is superceded by the morality of the society? The majority is not always right, once again proven by Nazi Germany and countless other societies throughout history. If there is not a constant morality, then the idea of morality is just a sham invented to keep control over and brainwash the masses.

Ridiculous.

There can be moral standards without a god.

The Nazis are not such a good example -- as many of their motives and anti-semitism was based on religion.

The so-called morality of "God" is anything but. The Bible is full of immoral lessons.

Morality and laws existed long before Christianity came about. And in many regions of the world before the Bible was known there.

Citing an invisible, ineffable being as the basis of morality is little better than citing no basis at all. Why should anyone believe in this morality absent proof that (a) there is a God, (b) she says X is moral/immoral, and (c) there is some reason we should listen to her?

Reason and common experience provide much more solid standards for morality than an fictional being.

it's dependant on the block of cheese in my left rear pocket *listens to cheese* it says your evil

Yes, morality is dependent on God. All things are dependent on God. Without God, none of this would even exist.

Morality is not, however, dependent on a book.

If you can't see the difference, you've been brainwashed by a cult.

There can be moral standards without a god.

The Nazis are not such a good example -- as many of their motives and anti-semitism was based on religion.

The so-called morality of "God" is anything but. The Bible is full of immoral lessons.

Morality and laws existed long before Christianity came about. And in many regions of the world before the Bible was known there.

Citing an invisible, ineffable being as the basis of morality is little better than citing no basis at all. Why should anyone believe in this morality absent proof that (a) there is a God, (b) she says X is moral/immoral, and (c) there is some reason we should listen to her?

Reason and common experience provide much more solid standards for morality than an fictional being.

I am not saying that there cannot be moral standards without a god, I was merely saying that morality is irrelevant if there is no god. Let's say that 10 000 years ago it was okay to rape a woman. Since the society (the majority of people) accepts it, it is therefore not an evil thing to do. If it was 'good' back then because it was acceptable by people, there is no reason why it should not be 'good' now, if it is accepted by people. The only difference is the majority does not hold that opinion, but the action can be neither good nor evil, since it was 'good' at one time and is now 'evil'. So, morality cannot exist unless there is an eternal standard that says that rape is wrong both now and 10 000 years ago.

As for Nazi Germany, you might want to re-educate yourself. I can honestly tell you and provide proof (if it is necessary) that you are way off-mark. They were not based on religion. They were based on Hitler's hatred, which had been incited, if by anything, by authors of anti-Semitic works like the 'Protocols of Zion' and his own failure as a young man. Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, and the only religion involved was really just the Jewish religion. Hitler was not religious. In any case, that was not the point of the argument. I was merely saying that unless there is a god, it cannot be truly said that the S.S. guard who dashed a baby's head on the wall was doing something evil, because in his mind, and in the mind of his society, it was acceptable.

I am merely saying, in the end, that if there is no god, morality can only exist within the mind of the individual. Human beings know practically nothing, and so two people may look upon the same action as either good or evil. Morality cannot exist because it conflicts between each individuals. You an say society determines good and evil, but then you have to conced that nothing done in a bad society is evil, and so morality conflicts between societies and once again, does not exist. It is all a matter of perception, and the idea of 'morality' is merely a tool used for brainwashing.

The Nazis are not such a good example -- as many of their motives and anti-semitism was based on religion.

There's a BIG, BIG difference between religion and God which needs to be cleared up. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the patience.

I do believe morality does depend on God, simply because the laws were formed first from the 10 Commandments. What is morally right hasn't changed much...but people have become increasingly lax on what is "socially acceptable".

There is no fine line between right or wrong. We all have an intrinsic conscience. Some of them are just burnt out.

I don't think you can define an act as inherently good or evil. Context is very important. The Christian God (the only one I am very familiar with) gives a moral code dependent on actions, (eg, the 10 commandments= do this, don't do that) which is one of the problems I have with christianty.

For example, in 'normal' circumstances, I think killing someone is not a good thing to do. However, I can think of several situations in which I would consider killing someone to be acceptable.

I don't think morality is dependent on any god. If it were, it would be consistent across humanity. (unless you have a system of many gods, with differing moral systems) It's not. Morality is a personal and cultural thing.

Depends on what law you're referring to... secular law has nothing to do with it... but church law apparently does, even according to the Bible.

The law that is upheld by the courts and the police. Religion is seperate from those.

The law that is upheld by the courts and the police. Religion is seperate from those.

People tend to forget "Under God". But of course, there are some who want it taken out.

You're going to change an historical document? *cough* Whiners.

I may not be able to string all my thoughts into the complex replies that you all have provided, but I will tell you the best I can...

When a dog sees that someone is hurt, and the person who is hurt is bleeding and crying, the dog does not simply walk away. I've never met a social animal that would do this. The dog comes up to you, he tries to lick you (dogs naturally know saliva has healing properties -- did you?) and he tries to help you.

Unless he is told otherwise.

If a three year old girl scrapes up her knee, her friend tries to comfort her and goes to get help. Her friend feels terrible.

My ultimate point being, I believe morality stems from deep inside each human. We are realize as we mature it isn't nice to hurt people, because it wasn't nice when it happened to us. This "golden rule" was accepted by a majority of the Native Americans, and Colombus was dumbfounded when he saw it for himself.

There is a sense of right and wrong in all of us. Whether we are born with it, whether it is learned the hard way, whatever. I believe humans are all good, at heart.

People tend to forget "Under God". But of course, there are some who want it taken out.

You're going to change an historical document? *cough* Whiners.

That was uncalled for.

*snip*

Sounds good. makes sense. Nice observation.

That was uncalled for.

The truth is uncalled for?
Gosh.

People tend to forget "Under God". But of course, there are some who want it taken out.

You're going to change an historical document? *cough* Whiners.

To what historical document with "Under God" in it are you referring?

My guess is none.

Reason and common experience provide much more solid standards for morality than an fictional being.

Reason and 'common experience'? What about reason tells me its wrong to kill someone and take their pocket money when no one will find out? What about reason would tell me it is wrong to kill an innocent person so his organs could be used to save 5 others innocent people?

Reason sucks.

ETHICS is objective, and independent of any belief system at all; it is, after all, based on what we know of the sciences, and generally applies to anything we consider sentient.

Morality is a matter of belief, but not necessarily a matter of God.

"Is morality dependent on God?"

Not at all. There are several quite effecitve moral systems which have little or nothing to do with religion in any way, manner, shape or form. :)

People tend to forget "Under God". But of course, there are some who want it taken out.

You're going to change an historical document? *cough* Whiners.

The Pledge of Allegiance was meant either for patriotism during Spanish-America or to sell flags, I forget which. Either way, the "Under God" bit has no right to be there; it came about during the Cold War to make us feel superior to 'those godless Commies'.

ETHICS is objective,

Since When? Ethics is the furthest thing from objective. Chemistry is objective. Ethics is most definitely not.

and independent of any belief system at all; it is, after all, based on what we know of the sciences, and generally applies to anything we consider sentient.

Ethics is not based on the sciences...

Reason and 'common experience'? What about reason tells me its wrong to kill someone and take their pocket money when no one will find out? What about reason would tell me it is wrong to kill an innocent person so his organs could be used to save 5 others innocent people?

Reason sucks.

How eloquent.

I highly doubt you are unaware of multiple ethical explanations why those things are wrong.

If not, you might try a library. They have things called books. One by Mill, Kant, or Rawls might be good starts.

But, if you are going to be silly, what about your claiming to that an invisible and ineffable being told you so tells me that either of those things are wrong?

Depends on what law you're referring to... secular law has nothing to do with it... but church law apparently does, even according to the Bible.
The law that is upheld by the courts and the police. Religion is seperate from those.

Look, if a law is moral, because it is the same as a religious law, wouldn't that infer that law is more BECAUSE of the existance of God? (or a god, depending on which text it is taken from...)

If there is no God, then there is no basis for morality. If everyone has a different view of what is moral, who is to say who is right? Without an eternal pointer that defines what morality is, then morality can change.

I would make a bet 200 years ago, almost no one thought abortion was moral. Today many people do not consider it immoral. This is do to a societal change. That would imply the definition of morality changes, which would make it no longer be morality, but rather law.
If you look at it from a religious viewpoint, it has always been immoral.

Since When? Ethics is the furthest thing from objective. Chemistry is objective. Ethics is most definitely not.
Ethic systems are considered 'objective', because in theory, an ethics system is premised on values that can be argued against, and applied reasonings/conclusions which are also open to contestation.
Moral systems usually have an underlining value system that is essentially 'non-contestable'. Both may have equally arbitary values, however in theory the values of moral systems are based at the most reductive level on unquestionable/uncontestable values, (often the very questioning of the fundamental values is itself an 'immoral' act). Alternatively the fundamental values of ethic systems are premises as being 'reasoned' and so 'possibly flawed' and thus open to contestation.

Ethics is not based on the sciences...
The correlation to science is that in theory ethics systems are 'testable' (through argumentation, annalysis, critique of the underlining values and the reasoning applied to them), where as moral systems essentially come down to some value that simply 'is'. In practise things rarely work out as they are expected to in theory, and of course 'scientific' is more figuritive that literal (or at least that's how I see it).

Look, if a law is moral, because it is the same as a religious law, wouldn't that infer that law is more BECAUSE of the existance of God? (or a god, depending on which text it is taken from...)

No. Could also very well be the other way around.

We have many laws in common with many ancient civilizations that were not Christian. Did our laws come from Zeus, for example?

If there is no God, then there is no basis for morality. If everyone has a different view of what is moral, who is to say who is right?

Which God? Which religion?

If everyone has a different view of God and morality is based on God, then who is to say who is right?

Without an eternal pointer that defines what morality is, then morality can change.

Yes, morality can change. So?

Even with your so-called "eternal pointer," morality changes. There are changes in the moral code between the Old and New Testaments, for example.

Almost every religion has had changes in its moral views over time.

I would make a bet 200 years ago, almost no one thought abortion was moral. Today many people do not consider it immoral. This is do to a societal change.

Depends a lot on where you are talking about.

Do you realize abortion generally wasn't illegal in the US until the late 1800s?

That would imply the definition of morality changes, which would make it no longer be morality, but rather law.

Um. Many differences between law and morality.

Ability to change is not one of them, however.


If you look at it from a religious viewpoint, it has always been immoral.

Um. No. Depends somewhat on what religion. But even from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, no.

Look, if a law is moral, because it is the same as a religious law, wouldn't that infer that law is more BECAUSE of the existance of God? (or a god, depending on which text it is taken from...)
No. Of course not.

If there is no God, then there is no basis for morality.
Of course there is a basis.

If everyone has a different view of what is moral, who is to say who is right?
Everyone.

Without an eternal pointer that defines what morality is, then morality can change.
Well of course morality 'changes'. Morality is the 'adherence' to moral values and norms, which are contextual to the moral system.

I would make a bet 200 years ago, almost no one thought abortion was moral.
I reckon you'd loose that bet.

Today many people do not consider it immoral.
And many do...and previously many did and did not...

This is do to a societal change.
Of course, moral systems are social constructs.

That would imply the definition of morality changes,
The definition of morality is dependent on the values of the moral system.

which would make it no longer be morality,
No, it would be exactly moralty. Perhaps you are conflating 'moral' with 'good'? They are not the same thing.

but rather law.
Law should (but usually isnt) be independent (although often conformitive with) morality. Law ideally is based on ethics.

If you look at it from a religious viewpoint, it has always been immoral.
Untrue!

The best morality is based on God and/or nature and deduced logically.

Moral Premise: That which is immoral is that which goes against God and/or nature.

Logical deduction: Acts which go against nature are acts which cannot be performed.

Moral Conclusion: Only that which cannot be done is immoral. Therefore, everything that can be done is moral.

Simple, perfect, and based on God.

The best morality is based on God and/or nature and deduced logically.

Moral Premise: That which is immoral is that which goes against God and/or nature.

Logical deduction: Acts which go against nature are acts which cannot be performed.

Moral Conclusion: Only that which cannot be done is immoral. Therefore, everything that can be done is moral.

Simple, perfect, and based on God.

QED

Bravo!

Logical deduction: Acts which go against nature are acts which cannot be performed.

Simple, perfect, and based on God.

Nature doesn't have anything to do with morality. Only society does. I would be a little cautious about calling your argument perfect, since in every religion actions can be performed that are against god. Anyway, that doesn't matter.

I think that the point I have previously tried to make is that morality, without god, is completely irrelevant. If there is not a set system of what is 'good' and what is 'evil', then it cannot exist. It is equivalent to saying that at certain points on the earth, the earth is not round. The statement that morality exists and changes is completely indefensible from a logical point of view, because it sets a double standard for context. Take murder for example. A murder in self-defense is justifiable in all contexts, religiou or state. But the consequences of the action of murder are the same. There is still a human being dead, and presumably there are still loved ones who mourn that person, just as there would be if the other person had been killed. What defines that the original murder would have been wrong, if the self-defense murder had not occured. Would it not be the consequences of the action? Therefore, by saying that the self-defence murder was morally good (as opposed to justifiable; justice and morality are completely different concepts and should not be confused) you would also have to conclude that the original murder was also morally good, because the only thing that is different is the victim. There is no determinate by which humanity can define things as 'good' or 'bad', and so no definition is true. By saying that society sets the standards of morality then, you are completely exhonerating all the men who participated in the Holocaust; all the Burmese persecutions of the Karen; all of the horrible things being done in Rwanda. Since there cannot be a universal standard without a god, then all actions are neutral and cannot be labelled as 'good' or 'evil'. It is merely a social system of brainwashing for the purpose of keeping order.

I am not saying that there cannot be moral standards without a god, I was merely saying that morality is irrelevant if there is no god. Let's say that 10 000 years ago it was okay to rape a woman. Since the society (the majority of people) accepts it, it is therefore not an evil thing to do. If it was 'good' back then because it was acceptable by people, there is no reason why it should not be 'good' now, if it is accepted by people. The only difference is the majority does not hold that opinion, but the action can be neither good nor evil, since it was 'good' at one time and is now 'evil'. So, morality cannot exist unless there is an eternal standard that says that rape is wrong both now and 10 000 years ago.

You've created a strawman to argue with.

There is not a simple dichotomy between "morality comes from God" and "whatever the majority wants is moral"

As for Nazi Germany, you might want to re-educate yourself. I can honestly tell you and provide proof (if it is necessary) that you are way off-mark. They were not based on religion. They were based on Hitler's hatred, which had been incited, if by anything, by authors of anti-Semitic works like the 'Protocols of Zion' and his own failure as a young man. Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, and the only religion involved was really just the Jewish religion. Hitler was not religious.

Rather silly revisionism.

Do you think anti-semitism had nothing to do with Christianity? It is you who needs some education.

Feel free to post revisionist history if you like.

Care to rebut these photos (http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm)?

Or the following revealed by a simple Google search:
Nazi Christians (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_16_121/ai_n8702389)
The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations (http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm)
Were the Nazis Christians? (http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2004/book5.htm)
The Protestant Reaction To The Nazi Holocaust (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust5.html)
Hitler Was a Christian (http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html
The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html)
The Holy Reich (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521603528)
The Role of the Churches (http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_role_church.asp)

I wouldn't go as far as some of these sources and blame Christianity for the Nazis or the Holocaust -- but I stand by my original statement: much of the Nazis' motives and anti-semitism were based on religion
.
In any case, that was not the point of the argument. I was merely saying that unless there is a god, it cannot be truly said that the S.S. guard who dashed a baby's head on the wall was doing something evil, because in his mind, and in the mind of his society, it was acceptable.

One can easily say that such an action was immoral on numerous grounds without reference to God.

And the Bible speaks of God order the killing of babies on frightfully copious occasions. So, your God appears to not be much help.

I am merely saying, in the end, that if there is no god, morality can only exist within the mind of the individual. Human beings know practically nothing, and so two people may look upon the same action as either good or evil.

And, I am saying (a) it is ridiculous to assert that ethics cannot be agreed upon or postulated without reference to God and (b) there is rather less ability to rationally "know" or agree on the existence of God, which God we should follow, and what God says is moral or immoral.

Morality cannot exist because it conflicts between each individuals. You an say society determines good and evil, but then you have to conced that nothing done in a bad society is evil, and so morality conflicts between societies and once again, does not exist. It is all a matter of perception, and the idea of 'morality' is merely a tool used for brainwashing.

I never said society determines good and evil. Doesn't the straw start to irritate your fists?

*snip*

I think that the point I have previously tried to make is that morality, without god, is completely irrelevant. If there is not a set system of what is 'good' and what is 'evil', then it cannot exist. It is equivalent to saying that at certain points on the earth, the earth is not round.

Which is a completely ridiculous assertion that you have failed to prove.


The statement that morality exists and changes is completely indefensible from a logical point of view, because it sets a double standard for context.

It is complete defensible from a logical point of view.

The idea that morality is fixed and never varies and never will is rather silly. It completely ignores context.

It also applies a double standard between secular morality (which you insist must be fixed, but is not) and the teachings of your God (which have changed -- see Old vs. New Testament).

Take murder for example. A murder in self-defense is justifiable in all contexts, religiou or state. But the consequences of the action of murder are the same. There is still a human being dead, and presumably there are still loved ones who mourn that person, just as there would be if the other person had been killed. What defines that the original murder would have been wrong, if the self-defense murder had not occured. Would it not be the consequences of the action? Therefore, by saying that the self-defence murder was morally good (as opposed to justifiable; justice and morality are completely different concepts and should not be confused) you would also have to conclude that the original murder was also morally good, because the only thing that is different is the victim. There is no determinate by which humanity can define things as 'good' or 'bad', and so no definition is true.

Bizarre.

Do you think you just proved that murder is good?

Or did you just prove self-defense is evil?

Or did you prove you are incapable of defining absolutes that ignore context but make sense.

By saying that society sets the standards of morality then, you are completely exhonerating all the men who participated in the Holocaust; all the Burmese persecutions of the Karen; all of the horrible things being done in Rwanda. Since there cannot be a universal standard without a god, then all actions are neutral and cannot be labelled as 'good' or 'evil'. It is merely a social system of brainwashing for the purpose of keeping order.

Strawman.

False dilemma.

Fallacious appeal to consequences.

and undoubtedly several more fallacies I'm too lazy to identify.

Morality is based on God's existance but not belief in God. There is a diffrence, which is why Athiests can still be moral people. The fact that God exists means that there is a set of universal good and universal evil. If you deny God's existance then you deny either of these existing. Therefore you cannot condem anyone for anything because there is no moral law that can be said to be written by one man that can apply to others if all men are equal.

Golden rule.
From various cultures. Some of which athestic, some of which are polythestic, some of which are monothestic.

Its not. I dont go rioting, mudering, and all that just because I don't beleive in the IPU.

My point - Why does every culture have similar morals even though they have different religions? Simple. Golden Rule.

That is all that needs to exist. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
If everyone has seperate morals, then they should discuss them like rational beings.

Moral Conclusion: Only that which cannot be done is immoral. Therefore, everything that can be done is moral.


I have the capacity to kill someone, does that make it moral by your logic?

Essentially my question to this forum is whether people think God is needed to justify morality?
Definitely not. You can be moral without believing in any gods.

Is an evil act evil because God says so? Or is it evil because it is evil?
No, an act is evil because society says so.

Morality is based on God's existance but not belief in God. There is a diffrence, which is why Athiests can still be moral people. The fact that God exists means that there is a set of universal good and universal evil. If you deny God's existance then you deny either of these existing. Therefore you cannot condem anyone for anything because there is no moral law that can be said to be written by one man that can apply to others if all men are equal.

Not true, Neo.

There does not need to be an absolute good or bad, for a society to decide that an act is moral... the most commonly used measure is whether the thing is detrimental to an individual or his/her society.

Thus, morality is determined by personal safety, and protection of property.

You don't need 'god', or even to believe in 'good/evil' to accept that.

I have the capacity to kill someone, does that make it moral by your logic?

Yes. I said that all acts you are capible of doing are moral. Now, wether or not it is a good idea is another matter entirely.

Lao Tzu once wrote that virtue eventually decends into propriety and properity is nothing more than the fasle veneer of loyality.
In context, I think that he was talking about the enforement of virtue. IE: "if you do something wrong you will be killed" In such cases, people aren't being "virtueous ". They are being proper because they don't want to be punished. However, he goes on to write things that support a second interperation.
One souldn't not bring any preconcieved notions of virtue or morality into decisionmaking because they hamper the process. Instead one should make decisions based on what is BEST given the circimstances.

As for Hitler not being 'evil'. Of course he was evil. HE and his henchmen sat around a table every night discussing what evil things they can do like any good D&D villian. BLood sacrifices to evil Gods, soul collecting, duels to the death with virtuous Paladins, buggering puppies. Of course they were evil.

Of course, I am being sardonic. Evil is just a matter of perspective. Hitler is considered 'evil' because he lost. If he had won he would have been a hero. Some misguided people still consider him to be a hero. Does that mean that we have to support his actions or that the Allies were wrong to fight World War II? Of course it doesn't. Moral relativism goes both ways. What Hitler did wasn't "evil" but it also wasn't "evil" to stop him. The point is to do what is best in a given situation, not to assign blame for our actions. Doing what is best requires one to examine the situation without the encumberance of prejudices.

You've created a strawman to argue with.

There is not a simple dichotomy between "morality comes from God" and "whatever the majority wants is moral"



Rather silly revisionism.

Do you think anti-semitism had nothing to do with Christianity? It is you who needs some education.

Feel free to post revisionist history if you like.

Care to rebut these photos (http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm)?

I wouldn't go as far as some of these sources and blame Christianity for the Nazis or the Holocaust -- but I stand by my original statement: much of the Nazis' motives and anti-semitism were based on religion


One can easily say that such an action was immoral on numerous grounds without reference to God.

And the Bible speaks of God order the killing of babies on frightfully copious occasions. So, your God appears to not be much help.

And, I am saying (a) it is ridiculous to assert that ethics cannot be agreed upon or postulated without reference to God and (b) there is rather less ability to rationally "know" or agree on the existence of God, which God we should follow, and what God says is moral or immoral.

I never said society determines good and evil. Doesn't the straw start to irritate your fists?

Just as a note on Hitler before I continue: I never said that anti-semitism did not occur under Christianity, merely that Hitler was not a Christian. He closed down all Catholic youth groups very early in hi reign and turned them into Hitler Youth groups. He killed thousands of Polish Catholic priests (probably because they were Polish, and not so much the religion.) and at other times, not publicly, he said things such as "Christianity is a protest against nature." The most accepted theory among Political Scientists is that he failed as an artist, and began to hate the world. Eventually, through books and the war, his hatred was directed at the Jews. It was essentially a product of this hatred and social Darwinism that led to the Holocaust. He was not Christian, in fact the prayers that children said in school were to him, for the most part. It is not overly surprising if a few Christian priests supported him either, since he had a very good image in Germany, and anybody who opposed him was killed. His hatred was not based on religion, many historians agree that he had abandoned religion when he was 12, and at the very latest after his father's death. Those photos, by the way, are mostly in the very early years of Nazism, and he did need support from the Christians, so his public image at that time needed to be Christian. He himself was not Christian, and he certainly didn't kill millions of Jews for the sake of Christianity.

I am not saying there cannot be a basis for morality outside God. I am not saying that people can't base 'morality' on the Golden Rule, but in that case, morality was not based on the Golden Rule. To the person who was killing the baby, it was no different from squashing a fly. He felt he was doing a good thing by ridding the world of another Jew. That action, if morality is based on circumstance, cannot be considered evil, or bad, or anything less than neutral.

The bible can speak of whatever it wants. It has absolutely no relevance to this conversation. Who said I was religious anyway? To be fair, in the cases spoken of in the bible, you should probably search for an official response, but my guess is that the whole 'immortal soul' thing and the impossibility of truly knowing right from wrong thing would justify that.

Your argument is indefensible because you think there can be a morality outside of the individual mind and outside of society without a god. Without a god, there is no such thing as right and wrong. The only thing that exists is nature. You assume that something can be intrinsically wrong, when 'wrong' does not exist. If a person should choose to kill another human, then it makes no difference whatsoever. If a person should decide to kill the entire human race, then it makes no difference. It cannot be evil, because evil is a construct of the human mind, and is variable within each individual. You can say that the entire human population agrees that having everyone killed is a bad thing, but it only takes one to decide it is not to make it so.

And I have never tried to prove that murder is good or self-defense is evil, only that the action can neither be good or evil without a god, because good and evil does not exist within nature. If a man kills someone, and it is beneficial to him, and society never catches him, has he done anything wrong? He did not consider the action was evil, and he was not punished. The life which he took made no difference, because thousands of lives have been taken under the same circumstances, and the world has never noticed. It can not be good or evil, therefore morality is completely irrelevant. It does not exist, except as a faulty social construct which cannot be verified and is merely a lie against nature, intended to keep order.

Just as a note on Hitler before I continue: I never said that anti-semitism did not occur under Christianity, merely that Hitler was not a Christian. He closed down all Catholic youth groups very early in hi reign and turned them into Hitler Youth groups. He killed thousands of Polish Catholic priests (probably because they were Polish, and not so much the religion.) and at other times, not publicly, he said things such as "Christianity is a protest against nature." The most accepted theory among Political Scientists is that he failed as an artist, and began to hate the world. Eventually, through books and the war, his hatred was directed at the Jews. It was essentially a product of this hatred and social Darwinism that led to the Holocaust. He was not Christian, in fact the prayers that children said in school were to him, for the most part. It is not overly surprising if a few Christian priests supported him either, since he had a very good image in Germany, and anybody who opposed him was killed. His hatred was not based on religion, many historians agree that he had abandoned religion when he was 12, and at the very latest after his father's death. Those photos, by the way, are mostly in the very early years of Nazism, and he did need support from the Christians, so his public image at that time needed to be Christian. He himself was not Christian, and he certainly didn't kill millions of Jews for the sake of Christianity.

You claimed to have proof you could present. Apparently that was a falsehood.

The bit about the "most accepted theory among Political Scientists" is pure make-believe. One of my degrees happens to be in political science, sparky.

The comment about Social Darwinism is silly.

Have you read Mein Kampf? It is chuck full of references to Hilter's belief in Christianity and to identification of his views -- particularly his anti-Semitism -- with Christianity.

Again, he was a perversion of Christianity. But he was raised a Christian, identified himself as a Christian, and was followed by Christians at the time.

Trying to revise history is futile.

As for this bit: "I never said that anti-semitism did not occur under Christianity"

You might want to go back and delete the part where you said:

They were not based on religion. They were based on Hitler's hatred, which had been incited, if by anything, by authors of anti-Semitic works like the 'Protocols of Zion' and his own failure as a young man. Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, and the only religion involved was really just the Jewish religion. Hitler was not religious.

Because right now people can read up the the thread and see you are backpedalling and looking rather foolish.

On the actual topic:
As you fail to actually respond to most of my points but continue to argue strawmen, perhaps you should debate yourself. In fact, it appears you are doing so:

I am not saying there cannot be a basis for morality outside God.

Without a god, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. But consistency on the basic premise of your argument is not too much to ask.

The bible can speak of whatever it wants. It has absolutely no relevance to this conversation. Who said I was religious anyway? To be fair, in the cases spoken of in the bible, you should probably search for an official response, but my guess is that the whole 'immortal soul' thing and the impossibility of truly knowing right from wrong thing would justify that.

Really, I though you were arguing morality is based on God. You've been rather clear that is a Christian God. (In fact you simply don't respond to the problem of which God?) Pray tell, how is the Bible irrelevant to a morality allegedly based on a Christian God?

Yes. Whenever you are pinned you raise the "I never said I was religious flag."

Some of us have memories and Jolt has a search engine.

You have posted at length about your views in support of Catholic teachings.

You pretty much only post on topics where you defend Christianity.

You have tried to prove the existence of God more than once.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the case.

Your argument is indefensible because you think there can be a morality outside of the individual mind and outside of society without a god.

My argument is perfectly defensible. You have yet to expose a flaw.

To the contrary, you ignore most of what I say and repeat the same conclusionary statements as if they were argument.

"outside of the individual mind and outside of society"? WTF?

Individuals can agree on a common morality and so can societies.

And individuals can apply reason and common experience to determine morality.

That does not mean every individual or every society is right.

Someday you may come across a subject called Ethics. You might try reading a little about it.

Most of our standards of law and morality come from Ethics.

Pre-Christian -- pre-Jewish -- societies had ethical standards in common with much we believe today. But they didn't believe in your God.

Without a god, there is no such thing as right and wrong. The only thing that exists is nature. You assume that something can be intrinsically wrong, when 'wrong' does not exist. If a person should choose to kill another human, then it makes no difference whatsoever. If a person should decide to kill the entire human race, then it makes no difference. It cannot be evil, because evil is a construct of the human mind, and is variable within each individual. You can say that the entire human population agrees that having everyone killed is a bad thing, but it only takes one to decide it is not to make it so.

Again, you begging the question, debating a strawman, and creating a false dilemma.

Ethics do not require that every individual agree. The rest of us can agree, for example, that the one person that wants to kill everyone is wrong. That he disagrees does not make him right.

Your scenario is no different if your one person simply believes in a different God or believes God has told him something different than everyone else.

Since it is impossible for us to define God, then it would be impossible to define our morality if it were based on God.

If the Christian God did exist, then yes, he would be responsible for all of morality.

There is no need for divine intervention to have morals. I have never beleaved in a divine power, eternal damnation, nor eternal rewards. My morals have come partly from laws and partly from just common sence on how to treat people and handle situations.

There is no need for divine intervention to have morals. I have never beleaved in a divine power, eternal damnation, nor eternal rewards. My morals have come partly from laws and partly from just common sence on how to treat people and handle situations.
But then where do laws come from? if laws make morals what makes laws? I thought it is usualy the other way around

But I agree no need for a deity for morals

I guess I explained it in a poor way. Most laws I agree with because they are designed to keep people from hurting others. Though laws can and are broken by those who ither A. Don't care about the penaltys or B. think they can get by. Now, where the morals come in... Some pre existing laws did help shape some of my morals because they just make sence, such as being against the law to kill someone. I hope this explains it better.

Morality is dependant on God, but you must define God first.
If you are an atheist then where does morality come from?
As I believe that God created us though scientific means, or guided evolution, then therefore morals of any kind are inspired by God. Even those who morals are opposed to a religion's morals are inspired by God, because they oppose what was said or percieved as God's will, so their own position was set by God, if not their own God.

Morality seems to be relative, but is fairly similar through the religions, with the variations in the exceptions and interpretions of those exceptions. I'm a Judeo-Christian leaning Deist, because I disagree with several major points of Christianity. Morality can used as an argument for the soul and God's existence, but let's not get into that aspect.

The morals of people stem from upbringing, no rules during upbringing means no morals. Abusive childhoods lead people to believe that abuse is moral, or that violence does not affect morality. but this can be rectified in later life.
However I still think that morals are divinely/otherwise inspired because the persons best interest is often against morals. For example, I have food and you do not. Purely in the intent of survival, you should take my food by any necessary means if I will not give it to you. To many this is immoral, but why is it immoral? Because you have been told it is immoral. If it is moral you have not been told during your upbringing, or you have later changed your ethics.

Now why would an atheist care that an action is immoral, there is no divine judgement, mortal punishment can be avoided, and if you are atheist, nothing happens when you die except that you die.

Laws are based upon morals of the general society, or the rulers of that society, which is why some laws are immoral, despite being socially acceptable. Since for an true atheist every law that is against their personal morals is immoral, and there is no greater morals they should follow as there is no superior being to follow, then they should not follow laws that affect their survival in a negative way, by their own logic. If they negatively affect their survival, then they are not a true atheist, as they have not follow natural logic.
If anyone is afraid to die they are not an true atheist, they are an agnostic. This is due to atheist belief in no afterlife, no fear of punishment, no self doubt, it would be logically like sleep. Any fears or doubts means that they believe that there is something after death. If there is anything after death, therefore it must involve some form of God or divine being, as death is an end to mortal existance, and therefore can not involve any mortal elemen.ts

If you are an atheist then where does morality come from?


The most basic morals (objective) come from the evolutionary process via our basis for survival as a species. Basically, the survival instincts. Then there are also the subjective morals, which are not based on any evolutionary process but by the dictates of culture or reasoning.

At least, that is one way of looking at it.

No, god's not needed to justify morality. If so, then cultures that follow the western image of "god" wouldn't be considered to have morality at all. That'd make large numbers if people from India or China "immoral". Not every logic.

Also, god's not really moral either, so this thing is a bad ressource for morality.

If morality was dependant on god, then would that mean that Stalin was god? Or Hitler? Because in their mind setting their own deeds were moral and extremly necessary.

The most basic morals (objective) come from the evolutionary process via our basis for survival as a species. Basically, the survival instincts. Then there are also the subjective morals, which are not based on any evolutionary process but by the dictates of culture or reasoning.

At least, that is one way of looking at it.

True, but atheism is a complete lack of faith in any divine being, which renders life pointless. This is because death negates your existence.
If your existence is negated, then it is pointless, because your existence has no greater meaning, except to you and those known to you. But since to atheists you are negated in death, there is no greater meaning to any atheists, or people without morals. Since these with morals believe you continue on despite death, those with morals are hence not atheist.
Besides, morals are not objectives, as objectives can be stopped by morals. If morals are objectives, this could not happen

Heck no. Otherwise the world would be screwed.

I thought it already was ;)

If you are an Atheist then where does morality come from?

Socrates considered something similar to this question. It was something along the lines of:
'Do the Gods choose what is good because it is good or because they can chose it?'
He thought that if it were the former then morality is something outside of the Gods completely. If it were the latter then what was to stop the Gods making the torture of non-believers moral?
He concluded that the Gods choose what is moral because it is moral and therefore morality is indipendant of the Gods.

You claimed to have proof you could present. Apparently that was a falsehood.

The bit about the "most accepted theory among Political Scientists" is pure make-believe. One of my degrees happens to be in political science, sparky.

Have you read Mein Kampf? It is chuck full of references to Hilter's belief in Christianity and to identification of his views -- particularly his anti-Semitism -- with Christianity.

Again, he was a perversion of Christianity. But he was raised a Christian, identified himself as a Christian, and was followed by Christians at the time.

Trying to revise history is futile.

As for this bit: "I never said that anti-semitism did not occur under Christianity"

You might want to go back and delete the part where you said:

They were not based on religion. They were based on Hitler's hatred, which had been incited, if by anything, by authors of anti-Semitic works like the 'Protocols of Zion' and his own failure as a young man. Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, and the only religion involved was really just the Jewish religion. Hitler was not religious.

Because right now people can read up the the thread and see you are backpedalling and looking rather foolish.

On the actual topic:
As you fail to actually respond to most of my points but continue to argue strawmen, perhaps you should debate yourself. In fact, it appears you are doing so:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. But consistency on the basic premise of your argument is not too much to ask.

Really, I though you were arguing morality is based on God. You've been rather clear that is a Christian God. (In fact you simply don't respond to the problem of which God?) Pray tell, how is the Bible irrelevant to a morality allegedly based on a Christian God?

Yes. Whenever you are pinned you raise the "I never said I was religious flag."

Some of us have memories and Jolt has a search engine.

You have posted at length about your views in support of Catholic teachings.

You pretty much only post on topics where you defend Christianity.

You have tried to prove the existence of God more than once.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the case.



My argument is perfectly defensible. You have yet to expose a flaw.

To the contrary, you ignore most of what I say and repeat the same conclusionary statements as if they were argument.

"outside of the individual mind and outside of society"? WTF?

Individuals can agree on a common morality and so can societies.

And individuals can apply reason and common experience to determine morality.

That does not mean every individual or every society is right.

Someday you may come across a subject called Ethics. You might try reading a little about it.

Most of our standards of law and morality come from Ethics.

Pre-Christian -- pre-Jewish -- societies had ethical standards in common with much we believe today. But they didn't believe in your God.



Again, you begging the question, debating a strawman, and creating a false dilemma.

Ethics do not require that every individual agree. The rest of us can agree, for example, that the one person that wants to kill everyone is wrong. That he disagrees does not make him right.

Your scenario is no different if your one person simply believes in a different God or believes God has told him something different than everyone else.

Alright sparky, I have a degree in political science too, and in contemporary history. (by the way, for a political scientist, I would have expected less biased websites than the ones you brought up, but I guess it was just a google search) I defend religion because I think it is absolutely ridiculous that so many atheists ridicule and demean faith and are, in essence, bigots towards those of religious inclination, and then accuse those who are religious as being bigots towards others because of their faith. (I am not accusing you of that, only saying that there are people on this forum like that) I defend religion because there are far too many who are attacking it, and yet have almost no idea what they are attacking. I will admit, however, that I am partial to Catholicism, because they get a lot of heat I feel they do not particularly deserve and I have several close friends who are Catholic, and many of their beliefs mirror my own. I also feel that belief in God is defensible and so it annoys me when some people decide that faith is irrational.

Secondly, on Nazism, very quickly, I said that Hitler's anti-semitism was not based on religion. It might be a little, I will admit, but it is not one of the primary reasons. In any case, anti-semitism did not originate with Hitler, and so I admitted that historically, there have been times when Christians persecuted Jews. I do not need to erase anything.

Please try and understand my argument. I am not saying that concepts of right and wrong cannot exist without a god, only that right and wrong cannot exist without a god. I am saying that truth is unalterable, and in order for morality to be relevant, it has to be unalterable. There has to be an eternal standard for right and wrong to exist. Without a god, there is only nature, and in nature there exists neither right or wrong. As a human concept, morality is then just a facet of the human imagination, maybe one necessary for society, but nonetheless a fantasy. In order for murder to be wrong then there has to be value in human life. Without a god, then human life is valueless in the broad picture. Thousands of years from now, humans will no longer exist and the universe will go on much as before because we are insignificant. My argument is merely that it is a faulty morality that we believe in, because it assumes that which does not exist - that humans have a right to life, security, etc... It is necessary for society and a natural product of the intellect, but it is still, in truth, non-existent. Right and wrong cannot exist, because it only exists in the mind, and not in truth. In order for morality to exist, it must exist outside the individual mind. For example, I think it is agreed that rape is wrong, but it was considered okay thousands of years ago. Therefore, a rape thousands of years ago is not evil, but it is evil today. In this sense, evil and good and right and wrong cannot exist because they are not defined. Moral standards can exist, the concept of morality can exist, but morality itself cannot exist, which I think was the question.

Morality is dependant on God, but you must define God first.
If you are an atheist then where does morality come from?


Why is morality dependent on god? How do you explain different religions having similar morality, if they worship different gods?

How do you explain the fact that many non-religious persons have moral codes?

How do you explain the fact that (for example) Christian 'morality' has changed over the years?

Is morality dependent on God?

Nope, I think it is a (very successful) human instinct.

True, but atheism is a complete lack of faith in any divine being, which renders life pointless. This is because death negates your existence.
If your existence is negated, then it is pointless, because your existence has no greater meaning, except to you and those known to you. But since to atheists you are negated in death, there is no greater meaning to any atheists, or people without morals. Since these with morals believe you continue on despite death, those with morals are hence not atheist.
Besides, morals are not objectives, as objectives can be stopped by morals. If morals are objectives, this could not happen

What a peculiarly selfish perspective.

Personally - although I AM an Atheist... and although I DO think it very likely that death is the 'end'...

I don't see that as making my life pointless.

On the contrary, during my life I have done (and still do) things that are beneficial to others, including volunteer work... services to my community, etc.

Thus - on at least one level, my life is FAR from pointless.

Also, by the time I die, I expect to be published, leaving a legacy behind me... leaving something for the future.

Thus - on another level, my life is FAR from pointless.

Unfortunately, your argument is based on a fallacious supposition.

Reason and 'common experience'? What about reason tells me its wrong to kill someone and take their pocket money when no one will find out? What about reason would tell me it is wrong to kill an innocent person so his organs could be used to save 5 others innocent people?

Reason sucks.

Interestingly, I happen to agree, though I don't see the need for a god to back morality. Humanity is my basis for ethics. Christians base their morality on faith in God. I base mine on faith in the worth of humanity.

morals are a human construct. evil is a human concept that applies not to the natural world. when a cheeta kills a buck is that evil? when a house cat toys with a bird before biting its head off,is that evil?

the only truth is this: people invented "evil" because they fear being weaker or powerless. the natural rule is that the strong survive and the weak dont. in human terms,the weak call the strong evil. so,if you call someone evil,it is because you fear them and feel powerless to stop their behavior. there is no real evil. there is only passive and agressive,weak and strong.

morals and ethics are another human failure. people will do as they are programmed to do by genetics regardless of others desires or expectations. if your code says you will be violent,then you will be violent. we are at the mercy of nature and our DNA. dont tell me that our intellect gives us the choice to be good. that is invalid. our intelligence only creates better ways to show our true nature. laws are broken all the time,so law doesnt work. people sin all the time,so religious guilt doesnt work. logical debate usually loses to irrational emotions,so intellect doesnt work. we are nothing more than the sum of our DNA programming despite what your IQ may be. if you want to make people moral,then you will have to use biology to breed out any genetic traits that are undesireable. this presents two problems. first:

if you start tampering with DNA,you could cause the death of the human race. millions of years of evolution should not be discarded lightly...its there for a reason. trust nature to do its job.

secondly: tampering with DNA and forcing assigned behaviors through genetic re-sequencing is a moral issue...thus we have closed the loop. do we commit an immoral series of acts in an attempt to make humanity more moral? wouldnt that be a false and hollow victory?

the human race will always be the same until we are no more. there will always be "good" people and "bad" people. that is how nature moves forward while maintaining the balance...and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. become strong or live in fear. your choice...

I take it you're big on Nietzsche.

I have to disagree... you can't define a person by their DNA, and you can't define a "person" in any general term. As humans, we're individuals, so you really have to look as humans through an individual lense. I agreee that humans succumb to their emotions before they consider logic, but I think that our emotions are the primary thing that determine one's personality, and they thought pattern. Morals are really controlled by anything other than the emotions of a human being, and so they're different for each different person.

So nothing really defines morals, because morals are entirely subjective, and different from every person.

It all depends on how you define Morality.

I see Morality as dependant on Religion/Socio-religious paradigms.

Ethics, on the other hand can be defined at a much lower order of semantic abstraction, and therefore becomes more useful for true social engineering.

I place a firm demarcation between Morality and Ethics. You can have Ethics without "morality" and vice versa.

Society is impossible without Ethics, but Morality/Religion is not required.