NationStates Jolt Archive

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

Well, society would have to come together and democratically vote for laws that seems reasonable. Majority would have to be quite high for a law to pass, and compromises would have to be made by the thousands. Of course, that is basically how the old Christian "laws" came to be, so no big differense.(Only they were decided by a few men, not all of us.)

Laws keep order. Hence the phrase "law and order". It's nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". As for the majority, most people don't want to die, so we have laws like "don't kill people". If you disagree with that majority and kill people, you are making their world a less pleasant place.

I'll restate your question in an attempt to answer it.

If there is a God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

Hobbes is a good person to read for this kind of thing.

Basically, he says that laws (and, on a wider scale, morality in general) are, in essence, a general agreement among people for mutual benefit, since not having laws (and a means of enforcing these laws) would be to everyone's detriment, as even the strong or cunning would live in fear of losing their lives and possessions. Laws make society possible, and, without society, life is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short".

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.
Laws come from the idea that all people have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Law is used to balance the rights of one person with the rights of others. For example, I have the right to shoot my gun at a target, but not if that target is pained on the wall of your house. Your right to your property overrules my right to target practice.

Why should you obey the law? To have a functioning society where everyone can live free and secure you need a power that can enforce law. The government has a virtual monopoly on force to make sure everyone follows the laws. I think Hobbe's Leviathan covered that part.

Right and wrong come from the idea that each person is entitled to the same rights, protections, and responsibilities as everyone else. Thus violating the rights or protections of one person or piling on an extra burden of responsibility results in an unfair (wrong) situation.

Laws keep order. Hence the phrase "law and order". It's nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". As for the majority, most people don't want to die, so we have laws like "don't kill people". If you disagree with that majority and kill people, you are making their world a less pleasant place.

True. But again...So? Why should I care about them living in a less pleasant place?

And I'm not trying to be facetious. I am just curious what the basis of these beliefs of inherent necessity to protect and all that stuff comes from. If you go into some countries, there are essentially bullies running them. They run on fear and violence, but they do keep order. So order can't be what we're really searching for.

Why is it that you would assume that the existence of God is what is necessary to create rules or laws?

I believe in a universal consciousness and I can't even make that connection.

Whether God exists or not doesnt necessitate anything.

Laws are people telling what to do. It doesn't really matter where they got them from or why they made them, that is what they are. Why should you do something? You don't have to even under God. Free will is built into most religions anyways. This is a retarded question.

True. But again...So? Why should I care about them living in a less pleasant place?

And I'm not trying to be facetious. I am just curious what the basis of these beliefs of inherent necessity to protect and all that stuff comes from. If you go into some countries, there are essentially bullies running them. They run on fear and violence, but they do keep order. So order can't be what we're really searching for.


It's called compromise. If you don't want others attacking you dont attack others. You might not care about those others that you stole from, or raped or killed but if you care about yourself not being in pain or having your car stolen then you will get together with others who want the same kind of protections and come up with rules that everyone can follow and still lead productive lives.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.
hmmmm

where do laws come from NOW? we get together (so to speak) and decide whats legal and whats illegal. you are "free" to ignore the law but you face a very real possibility that something you do or dont do will end up with us forcing you to live in a cage.

when it comes to more general morality, its decided by the society around you. if your personal morality deviates too much from that of those around you, they will make your life unpleasant by treating you badly. youre free to....cheat on your wife... but a large segment of society will punish you for it.

exactly the same as it would be if we assumed that god exists after all.

Laws come from the idea that all people have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Law is used to balance the rights of one person with the rights of others. For example, I have the right to shoot my gun at a target, but not if that target is pained on the wall of your house. Your right to your property overrules my right to target practice.
True. An idea. But what if I disagree with that idea? What if I think right by might. Whatever I say goes.

Why should you obey the law? To have a functioning society where everyone can live free and secure you need a power that can enforce law. The government has a virtual monopoly on force to make sure everyone follows the laws. I think Hobbe's Leviathan covered that part.
Now that's true. In most situations, not all. We tend to think concepts like the mofia are evil and wrong. Why? They're more powerful and influential in their own arena. That should make them the law, right?

Law starts with the concept of basic rights. Right to life, right to happiness, right to property.

No killing.
No raping.
No stealing.

It's pretty basic, if you have any respect for human life at all you don't need to ask where laws come from. I find it amusing that so many people can't behave without the threat of hellfire.

True. But again...So? Why should I care about them living in a less pleasant place?
1. If you have normal human empathy, their unhappiness will cause you unhappiness.
2. You will get thrown in jail if you break laws.

Ok. Easy guys. Philosophical question.

True. But again...So? Why should I care about them living in a less pleasant place?

And I'm not trying to be facetious. I am just curious what the basis of these beliefs of inherent necessity to protect and all that stuff comes from. If you go into some countries, there are essentially bullies running them. They run on fear and violence, but they do keep order. So order can't be what we're really searching for.
We're searching for a situation where men aren't engaged in "war of every man against every man,"

Primitive cultures are dangerous. Life is nasty, brutish and short. Modern governments that make a point of promoting rights and protections for the people by enforcing law make life better for all involved.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.
Authority derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.Troops or family groups of early hominins[1], tribes, 'nations', civilisations, and entire worlds that do not develop sufficiently effective behavioural constraints tend to get swallowed up in the oceans of history, leaving little more (and often less) than a few remains in the sediment.

Back in history, all 'unit groups' that succesfully precursored later ones managed to maintain enough grip on its own behaviour to do so[2], and no matter how depraved we might find their actions (the occasional human sacrifice by Celtic tribes, as one example of cultural policy, or the comparable occasional 'deathmatch' gladitorial combat by the Romans) they had a sustainable existence on the whole. On the other extreme, very few purely vegetarian cultures have thrived[3], while cultures that eschew the meat of pigs seem to have had a better time of it in climes not conducive to the healthy preservation of said food. It's essentially a version of 'natural selection'.

Note that the jury is not yet in whether 'global morality' and worldwide interactions between nations and ethnic groups and all the many creeds out there interact 'within the limits' of a viably continuing global civilisation. All we know is that "we're not dead yet".


[1] An arbitrary starting point. You might as well ask how prides of lions maintain order, how birds establish their 'pecking order', how microbe colonies fairly redistribute their specialisms in order to build sustainable relationships and promtoe the survival of the given collection of given vreatures.
[2] Possibly also some that did not do. Internally viable nations being wiped out by other nations was a breakdown in 'international' order. And natural disasters trump all.
[3] Buddhism, etc, survive, but have not 'taken over the world'. It is making inroads, though, and the current social climate may allow pacifist cultures to overcome. Hard to know, however.

If there is no God, then where do laws come from?

Whoever has the power to enforce them.

do you think that people are more motivated by "if i steal my neighbors ipod i might go to jail" or "if i steal my neighbors ipod i might go to hell"?

There are several things that have made me ask this question. First of all, there are, of course, so many ideas floating around that I personally think are blatantly, obviously, stupid. My opinion. Secondly, almost every single Sci-Fi has either a friendly race or an angry, evil race. With very strong connotations. The friendly race is always socialistic, peaceful, vegetarian, and beautiful. The angry, evil race is always barbaric, hungry, ignorant, and predatory.
I agree a friendly race has to be some of these things, and an angry evil race has to be some of these things, but why does their diet affect things.
"Who eats who" determines a lot of things in nature. Why is it considered primitive and wrong? Is a lion a primitive creature? Most would say, due to their position in the food chain and the continual competition with hyenas that lions are actually fairly advanced. They must constantly adapt to the challenges, correct? Are the considered morally wrong? Then why am I wrong for eating meat by some?
And this is just one area. What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to kill and take? Seriously.
The thing that got me stirred today was the discussion on spraypainting. One person sees NOTHING wrong with spraypainting someone else's place of business. If it happened to me, I'd wait with a gun and at the least the person would piss their pants the next time they came to provide me with their art. Some say guns are wrong. Round and round.
Where does the buck stop?

do you think that people are more motivated by "if i steal my neighbors ipod i might go to jail" or "if i steal my neighbors ipod i might go to hell"?

I'm certainly more motivated by the former, simply because I have evidence to support it.

Deterrence matters.

I find it interesting that some answers given before mine was (wafflingly) completed suggested that "we are all equal". That's one solution, but there are many cultures in which (say) woman are not equal, and yet work.

That's not to say that women not being equal is a good thing, but it's a currently viable state of existence for any such culture, given the whole 'phenotype'.

Actually, to extend the biological analogy, it's like a giraffe's neck being good on a giraffe, but not on a pigeon. But this is another kettle of fish. (Not that there's any way that enough oxygen could be taken up by an unmodified kettle to support fish living in it, I'm sure... ;))


[And on the theft issue, it's conceivable that a culture could have arisen in which non-violent theft existed as a core part of a culture. Possibly replacing one or mroe aspects of commerce and trickle-down wealth distribution.]

Whoever has the power to enforce them.
Exactly my point. And if I can rob banks successfully for ten years, no one is enforcing rules on me when I retire a rich man at 35.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

You are asking two questions:
1. Do we need laws?
Laws are the result of a group of people trying to co-exist peacefully. For peace to happen, people need some order and mutual understanding. Without order within a group, the group is weak and vulnerable. My guess is that, without laws, social and moral values, we would still be wearing furs and hitting eachother with clubs, at best. Actually, even monkeys have social rules...

2. Where would they come from?
Ultimately, they would come from whatever group is on top of the power chain; just like it happens today and has happened throughout mankind's history. If it wasn't religious, it would have been military or political.

There are several things that have made me ask this question. First of all, there are, of course, so many ideas floating around that I personally think are blatantly, obviously, stupid. My opinion. Secondly, almost every single Sci-Fi has either a friendly race or an angry, evil race. With very strong connotations. The friendly race is always socialistic, peaceful, vegetarian, and beautiful. The angry, evil race is always barbaric, hungry, ignorant, and predatory.
I agree a friendly race has to be some of these things, and an angry evil race has to be some of these things, but why does their diet affect things.
"Who eats who" determines a lot of things in nature. Why is it considered primitive and wrong? Is a lion a primitive creature? Most would say, due to their position in the food chain and the continual competition with hyenas that lions are actually fairly advanced. They must constantly adapt to the challenges, correct? Are the considered morally wrong? Then why am I wrong for eating meat by some?
And this is just one area. What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to kill and take? Seriously.
The thing that got me stirred today was the discussion on spraypainting. One person sees NOTHING wrong with spraypainting someone else's place of business. If it happened to me, I'd wait with a gun and at the least the person would piss their pants the next time they came to provide me with their art. Some say guns are wrong. Round and round.
Where does the buck stop?
If you see nothing wrong with killing and stealing, then surely you believe that concept applies to everyone, yes? So if it were ok for everyone to kill and steal lots and lots of people would kill and steal. This would collapse society. In a world where there is nothing wrong with stealing, then why work when you can steal for what you want?
Soon nobody will actually make anything new, everyone will resort to killing and stealing for what they want. Eventually you start to run out of food. So people try and protect food sources for themselves, fruit trees, fresh water rivers, etc. Then there's too much for them to protect alone, so they get someone to help the, in return for a share of the food.
These two people don't kill each other, because it is in their benefit not to do so. If, for example, the food source in question was a fruit tree. Then more trees would grow, expanding the are thet two have to protect. So they get in more people. And they don't kill each other either. And so on, and so on, and thus society regrows. Eventually someone writes down the conept of 'we don't kill each other' making a law.

That is where laws come from.

If you see nothing wrong with killing and stealing, then surely you believe that concept applies to everyone, yes?

That's not a necessary connection.

That's not a necessary connection.
It's just a fact of life though. In a place with no laws you get either rampant stealing, raping and killing, or a system of honor where any little infraction may lead to the dishonored person and his family killing the person responsible, which often leads to feuds.

There are several things that have made me ask this question. First of all, there are, of course, so many ideas floating around that I personally think are blatantly, obviously, stupid. My opinion. Secondly, almost every single Sci-Fi has either a friendly race or an angry, evil race. With very strong connotations. The friendly race is always socialistic, peaceful, vegetarian, and beautiful. The angry, evil race is always barbaric, hungry, ignorant, and predatory.
I agree a friendly race has to be some of these things, and an angry evil race has to be some of these things, but why does their diet affect things.
The diet thing is probably associative (predator with the 'good race' as prey for instance).

"Who eats who" determines a lot of things in nature. Why is it considered primitive and wrong?
Considered by who?

Is a lion a primitive creature? Most would say, due to their position in the food chain and the continual competition with hyenas that lions are actually fairly advanced. They must constantly adapt to the challenges, correct?
Primitive in biology doesnt refer to food chain niche - I dont see that advanced is a coherent concept in the way you appear to be using it. Primitive refers to a high level of continuity between a particular form/trait, and the ancestral form/trait that it the form/trait evolved from. It's inverse is 'derived' - the further from the ancestral form a trait is, the more derived and less primitive it is. Advanced is not at issue.

Are the considered morally wrong?Then why am I wrong for eating meat by some?
You'd have to ask those 'some' you refer to, although I expect you would probably get more than one answer if you asked more than of them.

And this is just one area. What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to kill and take? Seriously.
Right and wrong in the sense you refer to, are subjective.
It would probably be more profitable to ask why human societies appear to be very nearly universally characterised by such a set of values (aka 'right and wrong').

The thing that got me stirred today was the discussion on spraypainting. One person sees NOTHING wrong with spraypainting someone else's place of business. If it happened to me, I'd wait with a gun and at the least the person would piss their pants the next time they came to provide me with their art. Some say guns are wrong. Round and round.
Where does the buck stop?
Spraypainting other people's place of business and waiting with a gun for someone to spraypaint a building, both strike me as counter-productive. Of the two, presenting a gun appears to me to be the worse offense.

It's just a fact of life though. In a place with no laws you get either rampant stealing, raping and killing, or a system of honor where any little infraction may lead to the dishonored person and his family killing the person responsible, which often leads to feuds.

My point was that the symettry wasn't necessary. Look at feudalism. The feudal lords could steal from the peasants, but the peasants were not permitted to steal from the lord.

Laws come from the idea that all people have equal rights and responsibilities under the law.

That is an exceptionally recent concept. And furhtermore, what if our society evolved in the mindset of human sacrifice still, and it was in someway benefical to all of society. Would that make that right?

Let us assume for one moment,

when you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me:D

Anarchy is destructive rather than progressive.
Sane people strive for the highest quality of life possible for themselves and those they value (love?). That and the greatest conditions for survival.
Even non-human societal groups impose order on the group.
Examples would be wolves, bees and gorillas.
Whatever practices and "laws" of behavior benefit the largest portion of a group promotes success and quality of life for every individual in the group.
Hermits and isolationists don't need laws. But, they pay the price of having less potential for survival.
Remember: "No man is an island"

Contrast with: "Hell is other people"
The down side of living in a group.

when you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me:D
Page 3. PAGE 3!
Page 3.




Page 3.

:(

Exactly my point. And if I can rob banks successfully for ten years, no one is enforcing rules on me when I retire a rich man at 35.But if they ever catch you, you may end up in jail for the rest of your life.
I don't quite see your point here. No matter where laws come from, you can still do whatever you can get away with; or even what you in the end don't get away with, you just suffer the consequences then.

" Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. "

Sorry, forum poster friend. I choose not to go there. And no, don't want to force myself into the mindset of being there. Some people are just different. Wish you well!

If there is no God, then where do laws come from?It starts with us being a social species. We crave to belong to our group. Some sense of altruism, fairness and commonality is engrained in our genetics (and also found in related species).
When people hurt the group, the group hurts them. It's the law of the jungle, but a social law.

Who establishes authority?Whoever can. It may be the strongest, but it may also be a coalition of, say, the oldest and wisest. And such primitive power structures can expand and evolve in all sorts of ways.

Why should I follow your laws?Because there may be consequences if you don't. And of course you might have a conscious objecting to some of your behaviour; in which case it's just so you feel right.

What is right and wrong?There needn't be right nor wrong. But you can use any number of ethics to form a moral framework. Utilitarianism, social contract theory, Kantian ethics etc.

Why is it wrong to murder?Is it wrong to murder? If you ask why, you already assume it is, so do you have a reason to ask this?
Obviously, rampant murder is detrimental to a society, but that's fact, not ethics. Morals and values are cultural shortcuts in evolution of societies. As someone said before, it's just natural selection. Society's that behave 'morally' tend to survive.

Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks.You will care what the majority thinks once they take you out back and beat the living sh*t out of you.
No really, there's no substitute for force once social indoctrination has failed. You should care what the majority thinks, because it may think you need a kick to head. And that may have consequences for your wellbeing.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.
Pragmatism. The Golden Rule is a pretty good survival strategy, when you're having to live surrounded by bazillions of other humans.

Seriously, folks, do you really want to argue that without God standing over you there would be no reason for you to be decent and respectful? Are you really that sociopathic? Because I'm not.

I don't enjoy hurting people or animals. I don't enjoy stealing, or cheating, or breaking things. I don't have any particular desire to harm others. I don't have any desire to murder people. I don't have any desire to ruin anybody's day, provided they aren't actively trying to ruin mine.

I don't need God, or anybody else, to tell me not to kill. I don't need to be told to be polite and respectful of others. I feel good when I am kind and honorable. I enjoy being a "good person." If you don't, and if you really feel that God is the only force stopping you from abusing yourself or others, then I guess it's a good thing you've got your superstition to keep your horrible inner self hidden from the rest of the world.

That is an exceptionally recent concept. And furhtermore, what if our society evolved in the mindset of human sacrifice still, and it was in someway benefical to all of society. Would that make that right?
The fact is that we didn't evolve in the mindset of human sacrifice. Our society evolved in other, similarly destructive mindsets. For example, the mindset that said certain people were fit to be slaves, that women were fit only to bear children and keep house, and that homosexuality should be punished by prison time. We got over it. Why? Because our history has been a story of progress toward greater equality and respect for human rights.

But if they ever catch you, you may end up in jail for the rest of your life.
I don't quite see your point here. No matter where laws come from, you can still do whatever you can get away with; or even what you in the end don't get away with, you just suffer the consequences then.
My point was, Llewdor said that those who have the power to enforce them. If I can get away with it, you have zero power to enforce a law, therefore, it's not wrong, right?

Look, I agree. I don't personally have the urge to go kill someone. But some people do. Is it wrong? Well, it's socially unacceptable. Some people see it as a means to get what they want. Money, power, respect, freedom.

And as for getting over such social issues as homosexualityand slavery, there are plenty of people that think it is a degredation not an advancement. There's just a liberal bent to most of society today. And a large part of that I believe is due to a mass effort by modern media.

Law starts with the concept of basic rights. Right to life, right to happiness, right to property.

No killing.
No raping.
No stealing.

It's pretty basic, if you have any respect for human life at all you don't need to ask where laws come from. I find it amusing that so many people can't behave without the threat of hellfire.

Why should we have respect for other people? What makes them worthy?

Ahhh...

The oxymoron of moral atheism, moral agnosticism, and moral apathy.

The problem is: there is no basis for morality without a deity. It's whatever someone wants it to be. And if morals are relative...

Beat that gay!*
Burn that cross!*
Lynch that Black!*
Execute that Jew!*
Lock that mentally retarded person away!*
Beat that wife!*
Bomb that mosque!*

See the problem? If morals are relative, then you cannot tell me that any of those are wrong, because I decide what my morality is. So if I want to murder somone, I can, because there is no objective set of principles to define morality. The only principles that are reliable would come from a deity, someone/something that is not influenced by the desires of imperfection, as all humans are.

*I find all of these things incredibly immoral, so much that most deserve the death penalty, as prescribed in the Law of the Bible.

Look at studies of apes. Seriously. A lot of questions about why we run society the way we do have parallels there.

Im sure people can establish whats right and wrong without the involvement of religion. In fact, they might do a better job than religion has.

Ahhh...

The oxymoron of moral atheism, moral agnosticism, and moral apathy.

The problem is: there is no basis for morality without a deity. It's whatever someone wants it to be. And if morals are relative...

Beat that gay!*
Burn that cross!*
Lynch that Black!*
Execute that Jew!*
Lock that mentally retarded person away!*
Beat that wife!*
Bomb that mosque!*

See the problem? If morals are relative, then you cannot tell me that any of those are wrong, because I decide what my morality is. So if I want to murder somone, I can, because there is no objective set of principles to define morality. The only principles that are reliable would come from a deity, someone/something that is not influenced by the desires of imperfection, as all humans are.

*I find all of these things incredibly immoral, so much that most deserve the death penalty, as prescribed in the Law of the Bible.

What it is is a recognition that other people don't necessarily hold your moral opinions. As such, you need to find other ways to direct their behaviour as you see appropriate. That's where the "whoever has the power to enforce them" comes in.

Ahhh...

The oxymoron of moral atheism, moral agnosticism, and moral apathy.

The problem is: there is no basis for morality without a deity. It's whatever someone wants it to be. And if morals are relative...

Beat that gay!*
Burn that cross!*
Lynch that Black!*
Execute that Jew!*
Lock that mentally retarded person away!*
Beat that wife!*
Bomb that mosque!*

See the problem? If morals are relative, then you cannot tell me that any of those are wrong, because I decide what my morality is. So if I want to murder somone, I can, because there is no objective set of principles to define morality. The only principles that are reliable would come from a deity, someone/something that is not influenced by the desires of imperfection, as all humans are.

*I find all of these things incredibly immoral, so much that most deserve the death penalty, as prescribed in the Law of the Bible.Maybe the only principles that are 'reliable' would come from A deity, a *single* deity, universally recognised by *all* those concerned...

But there isn't a universal theistic morality. In fact, theism is arguably the enemy of universal morality given that there are so many versions of theism out there with so many unique rules to behviour. Not that there aren't different flavours of secular morality, but secular rules to behaviour don't say "it's Ok to kill someone who does not agree with your particular religion".

As an atheist (of the implicit variety, i.e. I have no particular belief) I'm not convinced of any kind of afterlife, and as such I treat death as a potential finality, not just the start to an eternity of God's grace (assuming I've followed the 'correct' deity's rules), and that would apply to everyone else. When someone dies, that's it, they're gone. So why should I kill?

Compare with someone religious who does believe in Divine Justice controlling their actions. What 'absolute' stops all religious people from behaving amorrally? Nothing. Let's have a look at the examples you give as what an atheistic morality would cause...


"Beat that gay!" - Not wishing to label all such individuals as homophobic, this is something that fundementalist Christians seem to do a lot, not counting the many other religious cultures that have taboos against homosexuality.
"Burn that cross!" - Who does this? Apart from some non-Christian cultures rallying against Christianity, it's the "Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and related groups, isn't it. Not looking too good for religion fostering 'morality', is it?
"Lynch that Black!" - Darn, I can see myself being too Christocentric in my examples, but as an extension to the above...
"Execute that Jew!" - Right, so Naziism was ostensibly secular, arguably a religion of 'idealism' and a cult of personality, so unless you want to take The Godwinated One's own beliefs (self-coined as "Positive Christianty"[1]) as an indicator, maybe you can subscribe most of the 'ground level' support for the Holocaust to be secular. Still, you've got to allow that a significant (not necessarily majority) amount of the Arab world quite freely justify similar opinions through their own religion.
"Lock that mentally retarded person away!" - Hardly something only non-religious people do.
"Beat that wife!" - It seems to me that anyone can be a spouse-abuser, it also seems to me that dogma is the basis of most examples of 'societal sexism'.
"Bomb that mosque!" - When was the last time I heard of a Mosque being bombed? Oooh, yes, it was in Iraq, victim of sectarian repirsals (or counter-reprisals, or counter-counter-reprisals, I admit I'd lost track, by then) by the religiously inclined...


As it was previously said: If you need the concept of your God (whichever God that might be) in your mind to stop you from killing people, then it is hoped that you never stop believing in your God. Unfortunately, there are people whose beliefs in God (by one name or another) provoke behaviour that you would not consider moral. Guided by their own beliefs or mis-guided by others (possibly internally secular, I'm not saying that POV is universally moral, either) who teach them that this act will grant them access to whichever paradise they have been brought up/converted to believe in...


[1] Indeed, he is on record as having said (give or take translation issues) "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Was that posturing to grab the attention of the religious in a typical politician way, or a genuine belief? Who knows, but it was certainly a religious justification if not religiously inspired.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

Each individual has a right to himself, based upon the application of the logical axiom A=A to the quality of actorship - locus of the effective primary agent of conscious volitional action.

Derived from the right to self are the positive rights to property and to take any action that does not involuntarily violate the rights of another person, and the negative rights against any action which does involuntarily violate the rights of another person. So from that you get prohibitions against murder, theft, fraud, assault, destruction of property, etc. etc. etc., the right to free trade and commerce amongst individuals and groups, civil rights such as sexual rights, freedom of communication, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, etc. etc.

Government and society are agreements, contracts between groups of individuals. The group agrees to a certain mode of government, ideally (rationally speaking) a sort of libertarian democracy or meritocracy. They agree on certain fundamental laws, on the power of the government to make further laws, if any, on the organizational structure of the government, on its role in public services, its ability or lack thereof to levy taxes, etc. etc.

Im sure people can establish whats right and wrong without the involvement of religion. In fact, they might do a better job than religion has.

Ok, Kazus, now you need proof for that statement. As a naturalist, a human is not more worth than a rock or than a plant. Look we are this tiny bit of dust compared to the universe, we are nothing. Its meaningless, we are worthless. There is no sense at all in any kind of morality. People are cheating you, you can cheat them! There are always "bad" things you can do no one ever can hold against you! You can do some really "evil" things and no one will be able to hold it against you. As long as we have not cameras looking allover our backs, we can do these "evil" things for our pleasure. Hey men you just live once, Have fun!?
No God a lot of morality? I doubt it..
Please give some evidence where non religion was so great in defining right and wrong!
The great Nietzsche said God is dead, see what he saw as conclusion about morality.

Ok, Kazus, now you need proof for that statement. As a naturalist, a human is not more worth than a rock or than a plant. Look we are this tiny bit of dust compared to the universe, we are nothing. Its meaningless, we are worthless. There is no sense at all in any kind of morality. People are cheating you, you can cheat them! There are always "bad" things you can do no one ever can hold against you! You can do some really "evil" things and no one will be able to hold it against you. As long as we have not cameras looking allover our backs, we can do these "evil" things for our pleasure. Hey men you just live once, Have fun!?Arrogance. Sheer arrogance. (In fact, someone who was being uncharitable might suggest that that's the whole point of religion. The arrogance that You are Special. Considering oneself to be "God's Special Project" seems to me the source of most of the world's problems. Not all of them, but a lot.)

Of course, you weren't addressing me, so please feel free to accuse me of arrogance of this other kind in replying.

If you can cheat people and people can cheat you, then you're in a version of the Prisoner's Dilemme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Which might mean that you're out for yourself against people out for themselves (everyone loses), but when run iteratively it tends to rule out mutual-cheater situations and ostracise lone-cheaters, leaving a high-cooperation situation purely through the environment of the 'game', needing no referee.

With a referee keeping score, and each player having his own idea of what that referee is looking for (or even their own idea about the existence of the referee) it's a different game. Personally, I'd prefer to play the original iterative one than compete against someone that thinks there's a referee who favours his cheating.

No God a lot of morality? I doubt it.. I don't say that No God == More morality, but emperical evidence certainly doesn't support your POV.

Please give some evidence where non religion was so great in defining right and wrong! ??? I could tell you that I went into a shop today and I did not shoplift. And it was not through the fear of Divine Wrath that I abstained from such an activity. I didn't do so because society favours the law-abiding and I see more to lose by acting against society than working with it, in this regard, and while you may chose to see a link with the Ten Commandments or somesuch, I doubt you can conclusively proove that any more than I can conclusively disprove it.

So maybe I've failed. Could you give me some evidence where religion was so great in defining right and wrong? Though shall not kill? Unless they are infidels/barbarous savages/worshipping a subtly different version of the same God. Repeat for every other religious 'definition' of right and wrong from every major world religion and probably every minor one too.

("Nice ten commandments you've got there, guvnor.... It would be a shame if some of them got... broken.")

The great Nietzsche said God is dead, see what he saw as conclusion about morality.I don't subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophies any more than I do those of Buddha. I may coincide with both, in some (different) ways, but that has nothing to do with it. Shall we talk about Nietzsche in particular, or remaining arguing over the source of human morality (which occured long before he had his ideas, which have been echoed (in the parts that I don't agree with) many times over from all points of the religious spectrum.

Simple - we'd all be wiped out early on by each other if there was no God (or any form of religion), from my assumption. Why? Because the early Kings worked on two things:

1) Merit
2) Divine Right

Nobility and bloodline are imposed and the caste systems differing people from others are a reslt of religion, because the Gods want it like that, for they fear a greater wrath from more advanced species. There is also Merit, whether there be somebody to decide which is more valuable or what is more worthwhile, meaning there would need to be some form of major structure to determine it. Why did they not revolt to anarchy, become animals? Because they were controlled through fear of retribution by a higher, more powerful form, and this is what separates humans from animals. In religion, arts and cultural differences form, and diversity flourishes. It allows us to accentuate on traits of those we particularly enjoy, and eliminate the lines of those we particularly find distasteful. It unifies society as a whole, giving them some form of common ground to establish a united thinking process, and it allows them to rally against those who seek to destroy them.

So without religion, there would be chaos, and we'd have died off a long time ago. We have no natural traits to allow us to adapt except for our intelligence, and in that religion is a massive part of it in keeping us together and strong.

Assumption: There is a God, but she's on extended holiday in Monaco. :D

Assumption: There is a God, but she's on extended holiday in Monaco. :D

Again?

Again?
Yep! She heard I was going to be there and wanted to see if we could create some magic! :D

Yep! She heard I was going to be there and wanted to see if we could create some magic! :D

She's overestimating us. Again. Last time the Dark Ages came about - I don't think she forgave us that easily.

She's overestimating us. Again. Last time the Dark Ages came about - I don't think she forgave us that easily.
Speak for yourself, dude! :D

Speak for yourself, dude! :D

Okay...uh...hmm...dude! I now speak for myself! Hooray!

Im sure people can establish whats right and wrong without the involvement of religion. In fact, they might do a better job than religion has.
People already establish right and wrong without religion. The overwhelming majority of people who CLAIM to draw their morality from God are actually just putting a God-face on the morals they've already decided to hold.

If you want to see this in action, try a simple test:

Ask a believer, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that God were to speak to you, and that He ordered you to viciously torture a kitten. He tells you that it is part of His plan for you to torture the kitten, and assures you that it really is for the best. Would you do it? How would you feel about it? Okay, now replace the word 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Same question."

Most believers will immediately try to change the subject by insisting that their God would never ask such a thing. The very fact that they feel the need to do this proves my point. If they really believed that morality comes from God, then they should not hesitate for a single instant in responding that OF COURSE they would torture both the kitten and the infant.

But the reality is that they have a moral system that exists independent of God. They already have a sense of right and wrong, just like the rest of us, it's just that they feel the need to attribute their moral beliefs to somebody else. They form moral judgments just like the rest of us: based on a combination of their personalilty, their experiences, and the cultural/society context in which they have lived their lives. God is an afterthought to morality, though often a very convenient one (particularly when one is looking for an easy out, or for somebody else to blame).

...

Society determines right and wrong. Society is influenced by religion.

For example, an isolated person from society will do they believe is right and wrong, though it can be skewed. Take the story of Abraham. He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac if it were not for God's intervention.

He was separated from society, and his view was different than most.

Ahhh...

The oxymoron of moral atheism, moral agnosticism, and moral apathy.

The problem is: there is no basis for morality without a deity. It's whatever someone wants it to be. And if morals are relative...

Beat that gay!*
Burn that cross!*
Lynch that Black!*
Execute that Jew!*
Lock that mentally retarded person away!*
Beat that wife!*
Bomb that mosque!*

See the problem? If morals are relative, then you cannot tell me that any of those are wrong, because I decide what my morality is.

Why should I argue that those things are objectively "wrong"? Morality IS purely subjective, so if you want to decide to view those things as moral then your judgment is as valid as mine.


So if I want to murder somone, I can, because there is no objective set of principles to define morality.

This is where you're wrong. If you want to murder somebody, and if you feel this action would be moral, then those feelings are just as valid as my feelings that committing murder would probably be a bad idea. However, if you choose to carry through on your feelings, then you can be held accountable in a very concrete and practical respect.

Human society is about a mutual contract that we make with one another, and if you choose to violate that contract then your fellow humans can hold you accountable. Doesn't matter who has "morality" on their side...it's just a matter of concrete reality.


The only principles that are reliable would come from a deity, someone/something that is not influenced by the desires of imperfection, as all humans are.

Dieties are created by human beings. They are inventions of the human mind, and are not helpful when it comes to moral questions. Just as all morality is relative, so are all dieties, since you can invent a diety to support any moral system you like. You don't even have to invent one, really, since you can just pick from the thousands that other people have thought up. If you really wanted to murder somebody, I think it would be quite easy for you to find a God who would support your choice.


*I find all of these things incredibly immoral, so much that most deserve the death penalty, as prescribed in the Law of the Bible.
So you have chosen to follow a religious system that reflects the moral judgments you have made. Don't foist your responsibility off on the Bible; admit that you make moral evaluations. Take responsibility for the moral code you live by. You have nothing to be ashamed of.

There is no evidence of a successful, large-scale civilization that also lacked religion, AFAIK. Even once a society LOSES that religiousity, it seems to me that the more complex aspects of moral codes in that society are in some way, shape, or form derived from behaviors originally reinforced by religious tradition.

Without any religion, I doubt we could've ever managed anything larger than tribal groups roaming the fields.

Society determines right and wrong.

Each individual determines right and wrong. Society is an expression of a kind of consensus that we all agree to go along with, so that we don't end up getting in each others' way more than necessary.


Society is influenced by religion.

And vice versa, yes.


For example, an isolated person from society will do they believe is right and wrong, though it can be skewed. Take the story of Abraham. He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac if it were not for God's intervention.

He was separated from society, and his view was different than most.
I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make here.

Each individual determines right and wrong. Society is an expression of a kind of consensus that we all agree to go along with, so that we don't end up getting in each others' way more than necessary.

Have you ever seen parents tell kids that something they do is not right? That taking a toy from another child is not a good thing? Their ability to determine such things are not developed because they haven't been in society's grasp long enough. Sorry about my wording.

And vice versa, yes.

Sure, why not.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make here.

It's an example.

As an atheist (of the implicit variety, i.e. I have no particular belief) I'm not convinced of any kind of afterlife, and as such I treat death as a potential finality, not just the start to an eternity of God's grace (assuming I've followed the 'correct' deity's rules), and that would apply to everyone else. When someone dies, that's it, they're gone. So why should I kill?

Because you feel like it. Without any kind of deity (no matter whose deity) there is no longer any sort of incentive to avoid killing. Under the assumption that there is no God (and therefore no afterlife), why wouldn't you kill someone who is causing you to feel less that optimal? You enjoy the fact that you have not died, but without some other feeling (forgiveness, understanding, compassion, etc.), there is no reason for you NOT to kill.

Without a God, there are only two reasons for laws:
1. Feelings such as those I mentioned above are innate in human beings and are powerful enough to overcome an individual's desire for self-fulillment.
2. By adhering to certain laws and cooperating with other individuals, your own life becomes better.

There could also be a combination of these two, but I tend to think that the second one is stronger than the first. The feelings in the first item have to be taught. If you put two toddlers who have not been taught what sharing is in a room with one toy, they will inevitably fight over that toy.

Without God, laws would come from humans' ability to think logically, and logically, humans would realize that their own lives would be enhanced by cooperating with others. This cooperation would take the form of laws.

If there is no God, then where do laws come from?

Human reason and sentiment.

Who establishes authority?

Whoever has the power to do so.

Why should I follow your laws?

Because I think they're right. If you don't agree, there's no reason - unless I have power over you, or a society which agrees with me does.

What is right and wrong?

"Right" is the category of actions which are perceived as "good," "wrong" is the category of actions which are perceived as "evil."

Why is it wrong to murder?

There is no objective reason. I say it is because it's wrong to deny somebody else freedom; taking somebody's life involves annihilating all their choices, and is thus one of the worst crimes that can be committed against an individual.

Why is it wrong to take from someone else?

There is no objective reason. I say it is only wrong if the property taken is justly owned; if it is, it is wrong because for whatever reason he deserves it more than you do.

Why is it wrong to take someone else's land?

See above.

Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy?

There is no objective way of answering whether or not it is, or why. I say it is not in the majority of cases, because animals lack meaningful sentience. Human beings, and potentially apes, are the exceptions.

Says who? The majority?

No, me.

What if I'm not in the majority?

Then it may be difficult for you to pursue the courses of action you want to pursue.

I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

Good for you.

All of these problems, of course, are not solved by the mere existence of the deity; stubborn heretics like me will still ask the question why we should obey some being just because He thinks He has the right to order us around.

As an atheist (of the implicit variety, i.e. I have no particular belief) I'm not convinced of any kind of afterlife, and as such I treat death as a potential finality, not just the start to an eternity of God's grace (assuming I've followed the 'correct' deity's rules), and that would apply to everyone else. When someone dies, that's it, they're gone. So why should I kill?Because you feel like it. Without any kind of deity (no matter whose deity) there is no longer any sort of incentive to avoid killing. Under the assumption that there is no God (and therefore no afterlife), why wouldn't you kill someone who is causing you to feel less that optimal? You enjoy the fact that you have not died, but without some other feeling (forgiveness, understanding, compassion, etc.), there is no reason for you NOT to kill.Well, that's told me. 'Scuse me while I go out and kill someone.

There's plenty of incentive to not kill. It's a social agreement. You could boil it down to "People don't try to kill me, I don't try to kill them," if you wanted to encompass all the various living conditions I could be living in, but as I don't live in mortal terror, and I see no advantage to killing someone else...

[Plus, are you saying I'm unable to feel forgiveness, understanding and compassion? Please be sensible.]

No, I stand by what I said. Death appears to me to be a finality. An end to it all. When a person dies, all that they are is gone, all that they could be is gone, all that others could be in their company is never to be. With the exception of very particular circumstances ("it's him or me" being one of them, "truly unredeamable psychotic murderers" possibly being another, but that's another kettle of fish). What right have I to kill people.

Compare with "What right have I to kill people? The right of my God!". No, people who believe aren't all like that (thank... erm... God), but it's hard not to be reactionary when someone says "You don't Believe, therefore you have no morals". Belief only means subscribing to a particular set of religiously-derived morals and can (can) mean overriding socially-derived morals with religious coutner-imperatives (much as social or religious morals can be overcome by financial counter-imperatives, or various others).

Without a God, there are only two reasons for laws:
1. Feelings such as those I mentioned above are innate in human beings and are powerful enough to overcome an individual's desire for self-fulillment.
2. By adhering to certain laws and cooperating with other individuals, your own life becomes better.I could wax lyrical on other reasons, but I talk too much. How about "Isn't that enough?" as an answer?

There could also be a combination of these two, but I tend to think that the second one is stronger than the first. The feelings in the first item have to be taught. If you put two toddlers who have not been taught what sharing is in a room with one toy, they will inevitably fight over that toy.Both are part of growing up. That's what parents/guardians/other adults are there for. That's also why there's discrepancies in morals between individuals, communities and cultures, due to the inherited 'memes' surrounding morals, and why leaders (OBL, the Godwinated One, 'lesser' threats like Nick Griffin) can skew significant proportions of a society's moral viewpoint away from the global worldview...

Without God, laws would come from humans' ability to think logically, and logically, humans would realize that their own lives would be enhanced by cooperating with others. This cooperation would take the form of laws.Yup. That's right. More or less what I've been saying from the begginning.

First of all, the question of "Where do laws come from?" is a loaded question because in order to answer it, one has to agree with the statement "Laws come from somewhere." This completely denies another, equally valid, hypothesis, which is "laws are inherent in reality". Laws are what govern the relation between two or more entities. The Earth goes around the Sun because of the law of gravity, but without the Earth or the Sun, there would be no gravity. That is not to say that there are not other things that can demonstrate gravity, but what I'm getting at here is that it's the interaction between the two objects that causes the manifest effects of gravity. One can examine either object and find no gravity at all, nor could one find gravity without being able to observe its effect on other objects, but put two objects in a relation with each other and gravity manifests. Essentially, gravity neither exists nor not exists, but is insubstantial.

Arrogance. Sheer arrogance. (In fact, someone who was being uncharitable might suggest that that's the whole point of religion. The arrogance that You are Special. Considering oneself to be "God's Special Project" seems to me the source of most of the world's problems. Not all of them, but a lot.)

Of course, you weren't addressing me, so please feel free to accuse me of arrogance of this other kind in replying.

If you can cheat people and people can cheat you, then you're in a version of the Prisoner's Dilemme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma). Which might mean that you're out for yourself against people out for themselves (everyone loses), but when run iteratively it tends to rule out mutual-cheater situations and ostracise lone-cheaters, leaving a high-cooperation situation purely through the environment of the 'game', needing no referee.

With a referee keeping score, and each player having his own idea of what that referee is looking for (or even their own idea about the existence of the referee) it's a different game. Personally, I'd prefer to play the original iterative one than compete against someone that thinks there's a referee who favours his cheating.

I don't say that No God == More morality, but emperical evidence certainly doesn't support your POV.

??? I could tell you that I went into a shop today and I did not shoplift. And it was not through the fear of Divine Wrath that I abstained from such an activity. I didn't do so because society favours the law-abiding and I see more to lose by acting against society than working with it, in this regard, and while you may chose to see a link with the Ten Commandments or somesuch, I doubt you can conclusively proove that any more than I can conclusively disprove it.

So maybe I've failed. Could you give me some evidence where religion was so great in defining right and wrong? Though shall not kill? Unless they are infidels/barbarous savages/worshipping a subtly different version of the same God. Repeat for every other religious 'definition' of right and wrong from every major world religion and probably every minor one too.

("Nice ten commandments you've got there, guvnor.... It would be a shame if some of them got... broken.")

I don't subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophies any more than I do those of Buddha. I may coincide with both, in some (different) ways, but that has nothing to do with it. Shall we talk about Nietzsche in particular, or remaining arguing over the source of human morality (which occured long before he had his ideas, which have been echoed (in the parts that I don't agree with) many times over from all points of the religious spectrum.

Bakamongue, certainly we have to differentiate, religions are different, and as you say religious people sometimes think they are more special than others. Yes I agree, that is arrogance and definetely wrong.

Yes I do not think, that when you are an atheist, that you neccessary start to steal. However, I am convinced that will affect your view of what you think is right and wrong. I am certain, that we in the western world are influenced by religion, namely Christianity which brought a lot of definitions of right and wrong. People adopted this definitions. Even Atheists. Therefore an Atheist is not neccessarily a Nietzsche. Nietzsche was influenced by Christianity, but he rejected it completely.
My guess is without the influence of our culture and history we would not have such law and order in our society and all these moral values. I would not bet on that in a society of pure Atheists, with no Christian background, people would develop such an social system you are talking of. Yes the cheaters are ostracised in our society, but not all. I know a lot of people who consider paying tax, when you have a way to cheat arround, as silly. Because they paid so much in the state much more than they get out of it. Where does their moral law about paying taxes originate from? Certainly not from religion.. The Bible tells us to pay taxes..

You might consider Christianity in its biblical form which defines right and wrong. Christians should not kill those who pray to other God's. Jesus said love you enemy. That Christians indeed killed other people does not take the standard from what the Bible says. The crusades were not biblical, no way! Certainly we Christians failed to follow what we were told to do and I am absolutely sad about that. And I can say that of myself, I did not always represented Christianity as I should have. I totally failed. But I believe Christianity had morally a very strong influence on our Western culture.

However, another thing, no, I do not try do do the thing right, because I fear the wrath of God! This is a complete misconception of Christianity. They might have been "Christians" who lived this distortion, but this is not true. I can not do any good thing and so accomplish that I am saved from the wrath of God. We have all failed, all the Christians too.
If we are humble before God, we see we have failed and we are not righteous at all. But he through Jesus accepts us, he even transforms our heart that we want to follow his law. We are drawn to God, because he loves us, because we love him. To be close to God, we follow what he commands.

....edited ...
I cant see why people who dont have a religious dogma would be necessarily incapable of producing a cultural/social/legal system/structure at least as functional as whichever society/s and/or culture/s you seem to have in mind.

I dont think you have accurately envisioned the relationship between a society/culture and the spiritual/religious beliefs/practises/worldviews trajectory the characterises it.

The configuration you seem to be positing appears to place religion in a causitive role with regards to morality. You could only conclude religion was causitive of morality if you accepted that morality didnt exist prior to religion existing, or if you accepted that effects preceed their own cause. Nothing in my body of knowledge/understanding leads me to believe that either of these two conditions are potentially true.

More to the point this just doesnt 'tally up' with the way the real world appears to function.
If religion were of the kind of importance you appear to assert (in the formation of morals) then surely this would be visible in the most basic societal unit - the genesis of the next generation (and of the 'nuclear family' unit), the marital union.
Yet say we have 4 'religious complexes', 2 are totemic and polythesist, the other two are different sects of the same religion - specifically 2 Chrisitian sects.

Now if your apparent view of the relationship between religion and morality were accurate, and we compare the 4 religious complexes on a foundational (ie basic to social structure/organisation and every-day life) moral imperative, we would expect the 2 Christian sects to generate moral imperatives that were more similar (or at least as similar) to each other as either is to either of the totemic complexes.

So let's compare the moral imperative of the 'number of wives a man ought to have'. It is true that in some Chrisitian sects the adherents believe the number is exactly one, where as in other Christian sects the adherents believe in 'as many as the lord blesses you with'. Meanwhile the totemic complexes could also fall into this configuration - 1 of each.

So we have 2 barely varied religious world views generating contrary (to each other) moral imperatives (at the very foundation of society) that match up perfectly with some other utterly dissimilar religious complex (our randomly chosen totemic polytheist complexes).

While I agree there is a correlation between religion and societal norms, I believe that you have over-emphasised the causative capacity of religion (in regards to morals) and have underestimated or even ignored religion's capacity to be an effect.

Please give some evidence where non religion was so great in defining right and wrong!

Considering religion has caused an immense amount if immoral behavior, I am going to say that, without religion, people may have been better off. I never said they would definitely be better off.

Of course there is a God and I, personally, hate Him with a vengeance. He is compassionate, tolerant and non-judgemental. All things that I despise.

I'm going to back off of this argument a little, because I can see (in my past postings) that I was getting myself wound up by some of the prior postings. Certainly reading back my own text I saw more anger in the words that I had intended.

It looks like a viewpoint issue. Where some of you see 'social moralities' to have been derived from source 'theistic moralities', I see the possibility of the reverse.

I do not disavow the existence of a theistic origin, but I find the waters sufficiently muddied in that regard if there /is/ a divine source of morality. Given that a lot of what makes society tick are things that allows pack animals to maintain a concept of 'membership', I see a clearly possible line of descent from times of instinct, and thus before the concept of esoteric deities could have arisen. Indeed, I find it not hard to imagine that the mental development of the concept of a deity would be closely linked with the embodiement of pre-existing 'unwritten rules'.

Skip ahead into modern humanity (e.g. into the time of civilisations) and we can look at something someone else (I forget who) said about early rulers who commanded on the basis of merit and divine right. While it's possible that divine right is indeed Divinely bestowed, it is certainly the case that someone who has by his own skills bested several successive opponents to his rulership can invoke the words "See! I must be the right King, for the Gods have willed it!". Even without a personal belief, involving mystical forces as part of ones 'aura' is surely safer than saying "Well, I've been good enough to beat all enemies so far, the next one might be succesful". Invoke the concept of a Guardian of your own fate and it may discourage the next enemy who would otherwise have prevailed.

Thus it may be with the posterboys of religion, the priests, the medicine men, the preachers. When some obscure bark-brew cures someone's fever, do you say "Oh, it was just something I learnt off of my predecessor, here, I'll show you all how to do it" or do you keep the knowledge to yourself (and those you chose as your successors) because in return you get a larger/more appetizing portion of the communal stew from the others? Indeed, if the bark-brew does not work do you say "Hmmm, looks like I couldn't cure that illness" or "it was not Fated that the child survive". The same could be said of prayers that work and prayers that don't.

Not that there is not some Power out there that (through the medium of their chosen representatives) cures or does not cure, approves or disapproves of various activities, has or has not caused morality to occur, but there is surprisingly little difference between social morality derived from divine morality and divine morality derived from social morality. We certainly inhabit the 'overlap' area between the two possibilities.

And while I am certainly not saying that all those of a religious bent are using twisted morals, the most obvious prominent 'twists' in morality are being perpetrated by those pertaining to convey a particular theistic worldview. So far I've not (knowingly) encountered one who is 'twisted' in this manner and I don't believe any of you who say such as "To be close to God, we follow what he commands," to have such distortions, at the same time I've also been lucky enough to have avoided those who are clearly both atheistic and amoral. And amoral individuals will exist under either world premise.

I have no reason to tell any of you that you should not retain your own current beliefs. Please feel free. Know only that I do not share your unequivocal viewpoint and have not seen any reason to grant it any more merit than the opposite one. I see it as the simpler solution that morals have evolved (and diversified and moulded to the wishes of those in power), I don't agree that morals were instilled (and then possibly corrupted by the amoral) but it is obvious that you do.

Ok. So assume God doesn't exist. Where do morals come from? Nowhere. Right and wrong don't exist. Is this a bad thing? No. Even if right and wrong did exist, why should we be right? Who cares? People do what they want whether they're right or not.

Where do laws come from? The laws are decided not by whether they're right or wrong, but by how they affect society. Laws that will be beneficial for society get passed, laws that are socially destructive don't get passed. Simple as that.

Society doesn't need God to function.

I'm going to back off of this argument a little, because I can see (in my past postings) that I was getting myself wound up by some of the prior postings. Certainly reading back my own text I saw more anger in the words that I had intended.

I thought you were doing fine...

Society doesn't need God to function.

You are so on my wish list...

Ok. So assume God doesn't exist. Where do morals come from? Nowhere. Right and wrong don't exist. Is this a bad thing? No. Even if right and wrong did exist, why should we be right? Who cares? People do what they want whether they're right or not.

Where do laws come from? The laws are decided not by whether they're right or wrong, but by how they effect society. Laws that will be beneficial for society get passed, laws that are socially destructive don't get passed. Simple as that.

Society doesn't need God to function.

You are contradicting yourself. All law is supposed to be beneficial to society because they prevent socially destructive acts. Wouldnt this law create a set of morals?

Have you ever seen parents tell kids that something they do is not right? That taking a toy from another child is not a good thing? Their ability to determine such things are not developed because they haven't been in society's grasp long enough. Sorry about my wording.

Ahhh, I understand what you were getting at now. Sorry, I think I originally misunderstood what you were saying.

You are contradicting yourself. All law is supposed to be beneficial to society because they prevent socially destructive acts. Wouldnt this law create a set of morals?


Not exactly. Morals are a set of chemically induced principles that people don't have to obey, but do because they feel that they need to. Laws are principles imposed on people. They don't vary from person to person and anyone breaking the law will be punished in their lifetime.

You are so on my wish list...

:fluffle:

Because you feel like it. Without any kind of deity (no matter whose deity) there is no longer any sort of incentive to avoid killing.

Unless, you know, you're NOT a psychopath. In which case there are a great many reasons why you would avoid killing.


Under the assumption that there is no God (and therefore no afterlife), why wouldn't you kill someone who is causing you to feel less that optimal?

You're kidding, right?

Do you feel inclined to take the life of everybody who annoys you, but you only refrain because God is standing over you? Do you really want to claim that this is how God-believers opperate?


You enjoy the fact that you have not died, but without some other feeling (forgiveness, understanding, compassion, etc.), there is no reason for you NOT to kill.

None of those feelings require belief in God.


Without a God, there are only two reasons for laws:
1. Feelings such as those I mentioned above are innate in human beings and are powerful enough to overcome an individual's desire for self-fulillment.
2. By adhering to certain laws and cooperating with other individuals, your own life becomes better.

Both of which are much better reasons than "because the magical sky fairy told us to have these laws."


There could also be a combination of these two, but I tend to think that the second one is stronger than the first. The feelings in the first item have to be taught. If you put two toddlers who have not been taught what sharing is in a room with one toy, they will inevitably fight over that toy.

Toddlers =/= adult human beings.


Without God, laws would come from humans' ability to think logically, and logically, humans would realize that their own lives would be enhanced by cooperating with others. This cooperation would take the form of laws.
With or without God, laws come from humans' ability to think pragmatically. God-believers don't actually draw their moral or legal beliefs from God, they draw God onto their beliefs.

Morals are a set of chemically induced principles that people don't have to obey, but do because they feel that they need to.

Could you explain this a bit more?


Laws are principles imposed on people. They don't vary from person to person and anyone breaking the law will be punished in their lifetime.
In virtually every existing and historical human society, the laws DO vary from person to person. Historically speaking, a society in which all laws are applied equally to all persons is essentially unknown.

With or without God, laws come from humans' ability to think pragmatically. God-believers don't actually draw their moral or legal beliefs from God, they draw God onto their beliefs.

Well said.
:fluffle:

You are contradicting yourself. All law is supposed to be beneficial to society because they prevent socially destructive acts. Wouldnt this law create a set of morals?
There are many means of preventing "socially destructive acts" which do not create a set of morals. Indeed, most of the means of preventing socially destructive acts are the PRODUCT of various sets of morals, not the cause.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.If you live in society, you are required to acknowledge and accept societies mores and laws. It doesn't matter what you personally think. if you are unhappy, you are free to seek agreement from others to change what you don't like. If you fail.....you have to accept it, after all you personally cannot decide what is acceptable.

There are many means of preventing "socially destructive acts" which do not create a set of morals. Indeed, most of the means of preventing socially destructive acts are the PRODUCT of various sets of morals, not the cause.

So wait...I dont get it...

If God makes a law, its morality
If human makes a law, its not?

If you live in society, you are required to acknowledge and accept societies mores and laws. It doesn't matter what you personally think. if you are unhappy, you are free to seek agreement from others to change what you don't like. If you fail.....you have to accept it, after all you personally cannot decide what is acceptable.
Depends on where you live. In my country, you are completely free to personally decide what is and is not acceptable for you. You are (at least nominally) allowed to act on your beliefs, as long as they do not prevent another person from exercising the same freedom.

An example would be vegitarianism. A vegitarian is a person who, for one reason or another, has concluded that eating meat is unacceptable. Our society, as a whole, does not agree with their evaluation, but they are free to disagree. They are free to live according to their moral code, even if it does not reflect the "consensus" (i.e. the "moral norm") in our society. The only thing they are prohibited from doing is forcing others to adhere to their moral standard.

This is actually the case with the vast majority of "moral" subjects. The only places where laws get involved are the areas where one moral vision requires that all people adhere to a particular set of behaviors. Sometimes this is pratical (i.e. prohibition of murder) and other times it is distructive and harmful (i.e. prohibition of individual consumption of drugs and alcohol). Human societies are mostly hung up on working out when and how to draw these lines.

Do you feel inclined to take the life of everybody who annoys you, but you only refrain because God is standing over you? Do you really want to claim that this is how God-believers opperate?

Well, talking from experience, I have a nice share of God-believers stored somewhere at around 10.000°C. Unfortunately, I've never managed to get my hands on the God-doers. You wouldn't happen to know any... by any chance?

Could you explain this a bit more?

Well why is it that people have a conscience? It's because we have a great deal of imagination. When we see a movie about a person undergoing an operation while being paralysed but completely alert and aware of pain, we feel bad. We imagine ourselves in the persons position. We imagine the pain and suffering and it makes us feel crap. If we consider breaking a persons nose, with blood everywhere and the nose being twisted and deformed, we imagine the pain. We feel bad about it. When we see another person, or even animal, in pain we imagine the same pain happening to us. Those of us that have more exposure to pain tend to become desensitised to it. We stop imagining ourselves in pain and we become stronger emotionally. Those who are emotionally fragile by comparison tend not to want to cause others pain or displeasure because they know that afterwards they will feel like crap from imagining it happening to them. Morality arises because of chemical and psychological factors. Because of the complexity of humans, we see great variation in morals from person to person.

In virtually every existing and historical human society, the laws DO vary from person to person. Historically speaking, a society in which all laws are applied equally to all persons is essentially unknown.

What I described was an ideal situation. We are after all human, and hence prone to corruption.

Laws keep order. Hence the phrase "law and order". It's nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". As for the majority, most people don't want to die, so we have laws like "don't kill people". If you disagree with that majority and kill people, you are making their world a less pleasant place.

Why is order important? Why is pleasantness?

So wait...I dont get it...

If God makes a law, its morality
If human makes a law, its not?
Um, no.

1) God doesn't make laws. Ever. People make laws, and may or may not attribute those laws to God.

2) Social control, or prevention of "socially destructive acts" requires a PRE-EXISTING moral standard. In other words, to determine that something is "destructive" you must first set your standard for what "destructive" means. You already must have made a value judgment.

3) As was originally said, law exists because it is supposedly beneficial to society, and is a means of preventing or punishing "socially destructive acts." Moral judgments, and a "moral consensus" create the laws. Law does not create morality, though it can create a means of enforcing conformity to the society's moral consensus.

Well why is it that people have a conscience? It's because we have a great deal of imagination. When we see a movie about a person undergoing an operation while being paralysed but completely alert and aware of pain, we feel bad. We imagine ourselves in the persons position. We imagine the pain and suffering and it makes us feel crap. If we consider breaking a persons nose, with blood everywhere and the nose being twisted and deformed, we imagine the pain. We feel bad about it. When we see another person, or even animal, in pain we imagine the same pain happening to us. Those of us that have more exposure to pain tend to become desensitised to it. We stop imagining ourselves in pain and we become stronger emotionally. Those who are emotionally fragile by comparison tend not to want to cause others pain or displeasure because they know that afterwards they will feel like crap from imagining it happening to them. Morality arises because of chemical and psychological factors. Because of the complexity of humans, we see great variation in morals from person to person.

I think my hangup was with your use of "chemical." It is true that all human thought is the result of electrochemical interactions, but I think it is dangerous to start trying to reduce "morality" to any sort of chemical origin...the interactions in the brain are far more complex than this suggests.

Why is order important? Why is pleasantness?

Because humans rely on each other for survival. Any food you eat was processed by another human. Any water you drink is the result of water mains installed by another person. Any person that fends for themselves, hunting and gathering, tends to have a low standard of living. Since most of us want a high standard of living, we want society to be stable. We need law and order for that.

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one.

This is a very interesting question really and congratulations for giving us something new and interesting on this topic.

I would say that your question leads to, IMO, an important truth. People talk about order, pleasantness and goodness, with no apparent standard.

Now I know a tortured argument can be made to attempt to satisfy these questions from a purely naturalistic standpoint...but IMO the very reaching out for standards of goodness that we know inately exist points to deeper realities.

There is a standard, there IS morality, and most of us here know it fundamentally (whether we intellectually admit it or not) and this itself is evidence of something more.

I think my hangup was with your use of "chemical." It is true that all human thought is the result of electrochemical interactions, but I think it is dangerous to start trying to reduce "morality" to any sort of chemical origin...the interactions in the brain are far more complex than this suggests.

So you're saying that morality is some kind of logical deduction then?

Um, no.

1) God doesn't make laws. Ever. People make laws, and may or may not attribute those laws to God.

Oh ok...I was under the impression things like the 10 commandments are laws but I guess I am the idiot here...

2) Social control, or prevention of "socially destructive acts" requires a PRE-EXISTING moral standard. In other words, to determine that something is "destructive" you must first set your standard for what "destructive" means. You already must have made a value judgment.

How so? If a primitive society realizes that killing each other is detrimental they are going to say "hey maybe we shouldnt do this."

Religion on the other hand says "Kill all non-believers." Actually it really doesnt but that doesnt prevent things like the Crusades.

3) As was originally said, law exists because it is supposedly beneficial to society, and is a means of preventing or punishing "socially destructive acts." Moral judgments, and a "moral consensus" create the laws. Law does not create morality, though it can create a means of enforcing conformity to the society's moral consensus.

What is in bold makes no sense. Assuming there is no god, and assuming this means there is no morality, how does society have a moral consensus? If the law reflects a moral consensus, wouldnt this lead to morality?

So you're saying that morality is some kind of logical deduction then?

You do realise monkeys have social "laws", don't you?

Because humans rely on each other for survival. Any food you eat was processed by another human. Any water you drink is the result of water mains installed by another person. Any person that fends for themselves, hunting and gathering, tends to have a low standard of living. Since most of us want a high standard of living, we want society to be stable. We need law and order for that.

If someone is in my way for getting more wealth or a woman or whatever, and I can murder him without getting got - why not? If it's in my interest to do so then I should.

In a purely naturalistic system I should be drawn to do whatever is best for my self. But we know inately that it is wrong.

Why is order important?

Efficiency. The majority of humans feel that they will be most successful if they opperate within a well-functioning society, and thus they are motivated to participate in societies that function well. A great many people believe that order is, within limits, a beneficial characteristic for a society. Hence, order is valued.


Why is pleasantness?
Humans, like most life forms we know of, have mechanisms that indicate to us which situations or stimuli are preferable and which are not. This is what "pleasentness" is. We desire "pleasentness" and desire to avoid "unpleasentness," as a general rule. Pleasentness is our indicator of what we want or do not want. Since society is nothing more or less than a consensus among members, "pleasentness" is important because it will help decide the agree-upon shape of the society, as well as the potential goals of the society.

You do realise monkeys have social "laws", don't you?

Yes. Point being?

So you're saying that morality is some kind of logical deduction then?
Meh. For some people, maybe. :)

Yes. Point being?

Does that mean monkeys worship god(s)?

If someone is in my way for getting more wealth or a woman or whatever, and I can murder him without getting got - why not? If it's in my interest to do so then I should.

In a purely naturalistic system I should be drawn to do whatever is best for my self. But we know inately that it is wrong.

Sure. Why not murder them. If you want an explanation of why I think we have these apparently 'innate' principles, check the reason for morality I posted in reply to bottle.

Does that mean monkeys worship god(s)?

I'm sorry. I seem to be missing the point.

Oh ok...I was under the impression things like the 10 commandments are laws but I guess I am the idiot here...

The Ten Commandments were written by humans, for humans. They are attributed to God, but they express moral rules that humans had applied in many civilizations before and since.


How so? If a primitive society realizes that killing each other is detrimental they are going to say "hey maybe we shouldnt do this."

Religion on the other hand says "Kill all non-believers." Actually it really doesnt but that doesnt prevent things like the Crusades.

Some religions are tribalistic. Some tribalistic cultures are religious, some are non-religious. Religiosity can be a vehicle for tribalism, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily the source.


What is in bold makes no sense. Assuming there is no god, and assuming this means there is no morality, how does society have a moral consensus?

There may be no OBJECTIVE morality, but that does not in any way mean that there is no morality. Subjective or relative morality is quite real, and quite significant.

A moral consensus would be formed like any other consensus; people get together and work out a way to deal with each other. They decide on what they think is the best system to go with, sometimes compromising on particular issues to accomodate one another. Ideally, the consensus creates a system where all parties feel like they are getting their money's worth...even if they may have to sacrifice some things, they feel that what they are gaining is worth it.


If the law reflects a moral consensus, wouldnt this lead to morality?
Um, no. If law REFLECTS morality, then morality pre-exists. Morality is not derived from law, law is derived from morality. In theory. Law can also be derived from immoral or amoral sources.

Meh. For some people, maybe. :)

I doubt it. If you ask any person why they have morals, they can't reply logically. You just get a "because that's the way I feel". If you get anyone that says "Because it's what God says is moral" then you made a point earlier on how people make a God to suit their morality.

Yes. Point being?

If monkeys have it, they're the result of "logical deduction".

e.g.

no in-group killing = stronger group.

Laws are logical deduction.

I'm sorry. I seem to be missing the point.

If laws are based on morality, and morality implies a god, do monkeys worship god(s)?

With or without God, laws come from humans' ability to think pragmatically. God-believers don't actually draw their moral or legal beliefs from God, they draw God onto their beliefs.

Everyone draws their morals from the Source. Morality is absolute, our understanding is not.

We have grey areas that humans disagree on...but there are certain things that no sane person argues for. Who argues that rapeing and murdering little girls can be moral? We know it is immoral absolutely and there is nothing naturalistic that would make it so.

Does that mean monkeys worship god(s)?

Yep, and I hate them for it. I haven't managed to get my hands on a monkey once.

If monkeys have it, they're the result of "logical deduction".

e.g.

no in-group killing = stronger group.

Laws are logical deduction.

Of course they are. But morality isn't.

If laws are based on morality, and morality implies a god, do monkeys worship god(s)?

Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on what's in the best interest of the entire community.

There may be no OBJECTIVE morality, but that does not in any way mean that there is no morality. Subjective or relative morality is quite real, and quite significant.

Then how is morality tied to a religion or god if its subjective?

A moral consensus would be formed like any other consensus; people get together and work out a way to deal with each other. They decide on what they think is the best system to go with, sometimes compromising on particular issues to accomodate one another. Ideally, the consensus creates a system where all parties feel like they are getting their money's worth...even if they may have to sacrifice some things, they feel that what they are gaining is worth it.

Again, this does not imply a god.


Um, no. If law REFLECTS morality, then morality pre-exists. Morality is not derived from law, law is derived from morality. In theory. Law can also be derived from immoral or amoral sources.

Then who created this morality if no god exists?

Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on what's in the best interest of the entire community.

OKAY I am officially confused. Start over.

Of course they are. But morality isn't.

Moralities are far too complicated for humans to understand, never mind monkeys...

Everyone draws their morals from the Source. Morality is absolute, our understanding is not.

Please support this statement.


We have grey areas that humans disagree on...but there are certain things that no sane person argues for.

You are employing a logical falacy. You are basically saying that all sane people must agree on certain things, which means that you are defining all people who don't agree as "insane."


Who argues that rapeing and murdering little girls can be moral?

A huge percentage of humans argue precisely that. The Bible contains several very clear cases in which raping and/or murdering little girls is condoned and even encouraged by God. Numerous political and religious groups have argued for the use of rape and murder as moral devises. These arguments are quite common, really. Plenty of modern pundits would be glad to explain to you why certain girls deserve to be raped, and why murdering certain kinds of children isn't such a bad thing.


We know it is immoral absolutely and there is nothing naturalistic that would make it so.
We know no such thing. You (and I) may believe that it is quite immoral to rape and murder children, but there are plenty of people who do not share our beliefs.

Also, while you may feel that you need a supernatural reason to hold your moral values, I feel no need to employ superstition on this subject.

Everyone draws their morals from the Source. Morality is absolute, our understanding is not.

We have grey areas that humans disagree on...but there are certain things that no sane person argues for. Who argues that rapeing and murdering little girls can be moral? We know it is immoral absolutely and there is nothing naturalistic that would make it so.

I don't think it's immoral. I don't have any morals whatsoever. What I have is feeling. I recognise that my feeling on an issue isn't absolute, but relative to my psychological condition. Morality has no meaning. Does rapeing young girls being immoral stop people from doing it. No. Are there people who say, 'I'd really like to rape that school girl over there, but I better not because it's immoral'? Of course not. For those who don't have the urges to rape it's immoral. For those that do have the urges they don't care. They only care about fulfilling their desire. The drive is so strong that they do it in spite of morality. Morality is useless. But just because I don't have morals, doesn't mean I wouldn't put a bullet through a child rapists head. They make me angry because they would make me fear it happening to my own daughter were I to have one.

Then how is morality tied to a religion or god if its subjective?

Religious belief, like law, is derived from people's moral judgments and from their cultural moral consensus.


Again, this does not imply a god.

Why should it?


Then who created this morality if no god exists?

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: each individual generates their own moral judgments. The general moral consensus of a society is created by those who participate in the society (or by those who control it, depending on how cynical you want to get).

Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on what's in the best interest of the entire community.
This is misleading. Laws are usually based on morality, because morality reflects what people BELIEVE to be the best interests of their community (or themselves).

Moralities are far too complicated for humans to understand, never mind monkeys...

You won't ever understand them with that attitude.

This is misleading. Laws are usually based on morality, because morality reflects what people BELIEVE to be the best interests of their community (or themselves).

The entire point of society is to allow many people to cooperate in order to boost the standard of living of all people within the society. Part of societies job is to punish criminals. Those that break the law. In some cases society is over run, infested if you will, with religion. Because of this, in order to satisfy the majority of the society, it is necessary to pass laws making certain things criminal so that the religious freaks don't get pissed off with the government. Morality being included in law is only a consequence of a majority of society having similar morals and demanding that they be imposed on those who don't want them.

Religious belief, like law, is derived from people's moral judgments and from their cultural moral consensus.

Moral judgement does not lead to religious belief. Are you saying there are no moral atheists out there?

it seems to me that everyone is explaining a central government in order to keep order and create laws, but how would this government come to be? If people believed murder wasn`t a sin or agenst a law that hasn`t been written yet then they could kill any politician that tried to take over. It seems that it would become a race to see who gets to be leader and how long they can lead. I hate to say it (being I am athiest) but without the idea of a god government, nay, the human race probly wouldn`t survive.

Moral judgement does not lead to religious belief. Are you saying there are no moral atheists out there?

An atheist may have what they consider to be morals, but a christian may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your atheist has could be wrong, and hence of no value.

An atheist may have what they consider to be morals, but a christian may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your atheist has could be wrong, and hence of no value.

Well it can tbe wrong if there is no right, as subjectivity implies. And an atheist that says its wrong to kill is no more or less barbaric than the christian who says it.

it seems to me that everyone is explaining a central government in order to keep order and create laws, but how would this government come to be? If people believed murder wasn`t a sin or agenst a law that hasn`t been written yet then they could kill any politician that tried to take over. It seems that it would become a race to see who gets to be leader and how long they can lead. I hate to say it (being I am athiest) but without the idea of a god government, nay, the human race probly wouldn`t survive.

The thing about humanity is that we're much smarter than everything else. We will quickly realise that any persons creating anarchy are undesirable, and they will be removed from the community, allowing order to prevail.

Well it can tbe wrong if there is no right, as subjectivity implies. And an atheist that says its wrong to kill is no more or less barbaric than the christian who says it.

And so the absolute nature of morality crumbles making morality worthless.

You won't ever understand them with that attitude.

But I do understand them and, believe me, I do care. After all, the less they understand the secret concept of morality, the more souls I collect, right?

Law derives itself from whatever moral compass a human being (or group thereof) has. Most laws start as social taboo. The social group (or leader thereof) decides Action X is wrong or immoral. Those who commit Action X suffer ostracism or whatever punishment the group sees fit. Later as social units become tribes and city-states social taboos translate themselves into laws enforced by whatever ruler exists.

Interestingly enough, if an illegal action becomes legal, that social taboo is still attached to it for a period of time.

But I do understand them and, believe me, I do care. After all, the less they understand the secret concept of morality, the more souls I collect, right?
:D

An atheist may have what they consider to be morals, but a christian may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your atheist has could be wrong, and hence of no value.

Anyone's morals could bve wrong, they are entirely subjective and dependant on society. A christians lifestyle might be completely immoral to a muslim, and vice versa. Ultimately a person (or animal) has to do what is best for themselves and their group. Killing other members of the group is bad for the group, and also if you condone killing you yourslef could be killed. Moral behaviour evolves with society. a group who have no morals wil soon kill eachother off, or at least be unable to share resources and cooperate. this will be a disadvantage against a group with rules derived from morals, so that group will survive. Even animals have rules, otherwise there could be no dominant male, etc. They may have no actual morals but they have behaviour which benefits the group as a whole.

How about this. If you knew for sure there was no afterlife, would you just do whatever you wanted? kill people? steal? no, because that kind of behaviour has consequences in this life. even without rules and morals, if you behave in a way that hinders the group, you will be removed from the group, one way or another.

Anyone's morals could bve wrong, they are entirely subjective and dependant on society. A christians lifestyle might be completely immoral to a muslim, and vice versa. Ultimately a person (or animal) has to do what is best for themselves and their group. Killing other members of the group is bad for the group, and also if you condone killing you yourslef could be killed. Moral behaviour evolves with society. a group who have no morals wil soon kill eachother off, or at least be unable to share resources and cooperate. this will be a disadvantage against a group with rules derived from morals, so that group will survive. Even animals have rules, otherwise there could be no dominant male, etc. They may have no actual morals but they have behaviour which benefits the group as a whole.

How about this. If you knew for sure there was no afterlife, would you just do whatever you wanted? kill people? steal? no, because that kind of behaviour has consequences in this life. even without rules and morals, if you behave in a way that hinders the group, you will be removed from the group, one way or another.

I'm aware of this It's the point I'm trying to argue.

If there is a God, of any form, its a given that your actions reflect on what happens after you die, hence a moral code is developed and so a code of laws.

If there is not a God, but there is a selective or morally governed afterlife or if your actions somehow determine the outcome of "what happens next" then again, a moral code follows and so a code of laws.

This thread is discussing the idea that there is no God and no afterlife. In that case we have the "this is all we've got" scenario, so where does the moral code come from?

Classically groups survive better in the world than individuals, particularly if those groups actively work together. For groups to function members have to abide by common codes of conduct, the general principal of this is to not do anything which would harm the group, in the very basic sense this is because this would harm the individual because the group they are part of is stronger than the individual.

What constitutes harming the group? Initially this would be simply harming productive members of the society, but as society develops you get higher ideals that involve looking at the future consequences of actions such as sharing for between the group for the future benefit of all, not sharing would in essence weaken the group in the future. Of course ideas of property develop alongside this and theft is essentially a form of uneven distribution of property, going against societies distribution.

It is from these simple ideas that a code of laws is built from, rules that each society lives by to ensure they are able to work together and remain productive and it is no coincidence that societies around the world have independently developed similar basic laws (even those developed outside the religions based on the teachings of Abraham - Christians, Muslims and Jews).

Without these code of laws society would not work together in an effective manner, people could not be dedicated fire fighters, doctors or policemen if they had to produce their own food and shelter and defend themselves.

This explains society, but why do YOU have to obide?

Society has to punish people that don't abide by these laws because sometimes a gain can be made by one individual at the expense of another in breach of these laws. Without punishment whenever such an opportunity arose individuals would take it and the society as a whole would be harmed. In other words more damage is done to society by an indivudal breaking the law than that individual gains, but usually the net effect on that individual (gain from crime - impact of societies loss) is positive for the individual, so further penalty needs to be applied to balance this.

So, you don't HAVE to obide by the laws, you can take what you want when you want, kill who you want etc etc....but you must also face the punishment of society if you do.

Historically (and I feel this should still be the case), people were part of society when they are born and raised, if they harm society in a significant manner they were ostracised from it, but off from ALL benefits it could provide and left to fend for themselves. If they wanted to rejoin, they not only had to show that they would be productive to society in the future, they would have to repair the damage they caused and provide some extra benefit to society.

Perhaps this last part is a political statement, implying that if someone commits a significant crime then they should be ejected from society, have all benefits (financial and service related) removed rather than being sent to prison, and maybe that might just work....

The thing about humanity is that we're much smarter than everything else. We will quickly realise that any persons creating anarchy are undesirable, and they will be removed from the community, allowing order to prevail.

and how can order prevail if it is human nature to fight for dominace? Even if a leader takes over eventually the society will fail because of how in the human mind we want power. It would be like rome over and over again without religion. We would build great civilisations then they would crumble under the pressure to create democracy for the people and the leaders desire to have power over the people....of course I suppose its all based on a theory.

An atheist may have what they consider to be morals, but a christian may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your atheist has could be wrong, and hence of no value.


A Christian may have what they consider to be morals, but an Atheist may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your Christian has could be wrong, and hence of no value....

I'm aware of this It's the point I'm trying to argue.

Sorry, my fault, I took it out of context.

But I do understand them and, believe me, I do care. After all, the less they understand the secret concept of morality, the more souls I collect, right?
Crown Prince, eh?
How'd the swimsuit competition go? :D

Why is it that you would assume that the existence of God is what is necessary to create rules or laws?

I believe in a universal consciousness and I can't even make that connection.

Whether God exists or not doesnt necessitate anything.

If God does not exist, then we were not created by anyone or anything, and we therefore are a product of random chance, and we would have no purpose. If something has no purpose then it does matter what it does, or has done to it. So therefore, the question of whether or not God exists is very valid. (By the way he does exist):p

If God does not exist, then we were not created by anyone or anything, and we therefore are a product of random chance, and we would have no purpose. If something has no purpose then it does matter what it does, or has done to it. So therefore, the question of whether or not God exists is very valid. (By the way he does exist):p

Just one thing...Why do people keep saying "random chance"? It seems redundant, and is anything really random?

If God does not exist, then we were not created by anyone or anything, and we therefore are a product of random chance, and we would have no purpose. If something has no purpose then it does matter what it does, or has done to it. So therefore, the question of whether or not God exists is very valid. (By the way he does exist):p

Should that read "then it doesn't matter what it does"?

I would agree that it doesn't matter. You've just asserted that the absence of a God necessarily requires the absence of an objective morality. Congratulations.

And I'm okay with that.

If God does not exist, then we were not created by anyone or anything, and we therefore are a product of random chance, and we would have no purpose. If something has no purpose then it does matter what it does, or has done to it. So therefore, the question of whether or not God exists is very valid. (By the way he does exist):p


I don't see how the existence of a God neccesitates that we were created by said God. Nor do I see how if said creation occured, that that implies a purpose or a moral code. Just because you heard the idea somewhere and it sounds good to you, is no reason to subscribe solely to that viewpoint. Not everything is so black and white.

What if Gods existence was proven and further proof was found that we were all created in hopes that we would torture each other?

Let us assume for one moment, there is no God. We are NOT debating the issue of God. That question is answered in the asssumption.
Let me ask a question:
If there is no God, then where do laws come from? Who establishes authority? Why should I follow your laws? What is right and wrong? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to take from someone else? Why is it wrong to take someone else's land? Why is it wrong to eat animals? Even if they're cute and fuzzy? Says who? The majority? What if I'm not in the majority? I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm a philosophy of one. Then you would be a psycho-path, and there would be nothing wrong with that.

Then you would be a psycho-path, and there would be nothing wrong with that.

Sociopath?

Sociopath?

The terms are effectively synomynous.

Crown Prince, eh?
How'd the swimsuit competition go? :D

Swimsuit competition? I've got "young children regularly seen wagering pocket money at blackjack tables" but no swimsuit competitions... Not a bad idea, though. Could follow with a swimming race through rivers of lava...

A Christian may have what they consider to be morals, but an Atheist may consider these morals to be barbaric. Morality is something dependant on the person. It's a point of view. So these morals that your Christian has could be wrong, and hence of no value....

Listen, my little plaything, let me se if I can explain it simpler.

I am not interested in your Christians or your Atheists. I want the barbarians. SHOW ME THE BARBARIANS! :mad:

Swimsuit competition? I've got "young children regularly seen wagering pocket money at blackjack tables" but no swimsuit competitions... Not a bad idea, though. Could follow with a swimming race through rivers of lava...
...so you'd be nicked "The Spitz of The Styx" :p

The Serpent Is Rising? :D

The Serpent Is Rising? :D
Not in front of my virgin eyes! Woe is me!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1192.gif
Isn't that some thing they show after MXC on some nights?

Not in front of my virgin eyes! Woe is me!
Isn't that some thing they show after MXC on some nights?
Some album from the 70's, from a band called the Styx...
Never indulged myself, but remember the name from someone mentioning it :D

Some album from the 70's, from a band called the Styx...
Never indulged myself, but remember the name from someone mentioning it :D
Oh ... i always get the South Park reference.
Funny story (i'm running an anecdote thread right now) - i got the full version of that tune and put it on an iPod with the little broadcast nub on it. Deibhaid and i were chasing people around in cars playing it, hoping their FM receivers were on at the time, so we could keep annoying them with Cartman's version of "Sailing Away". :D

Oh ... i always get the South Park reference.
Funny story (i'm running an anecdote thread right now) - i got the full version of that tune and put it on an iPod with the little broadcast nub on it. Deibhaid and i were chasing people around in cars playing it, hoping their FM receivers were on at the time, so we could keep annoying them with Cartman's version of "Sailing Away". :D

:D http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/42369/south14.wav

:D http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/42369/south14.wav
Can you imagine the kind of hell you'd inflict on the general populace by chasing them around with that for an hour or two? :D

Can you imagine the kind of hell you'd inflict on the general populace by chasing them around with that for an hour or two? :D
I'm actually thinking of giving them a contract to play here, for my little playthings, 24/7x365 or 66 for the rest of their damnation. Or until I found something else even worse...

I'm actually thinking of giving them a contract to play here, for my little playthings, 24/7x365 or 66 for the rest of their damnation. Or until I found something else even worse...
There's probably worse, but that one's definitely a contender.
:)
If i personally haven't posted worse, i have faith that there's a few other particularly evil-inclined posters here with some good ideas.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu11.gif

Listen, my little plaything, let me se if I can explain it simpler.

I am not interested in your Christians or your Atheists. I want the barbarians. SHOW ME THE BARBARIANS! :mad:

If you want me to respond to it - you'll have to at least make it coherent...

If you want me to respond to it - you'll have to at least make it coherent...
I cannot imagine how I could possibly make it more clear... or coherent.

Swimsuit competition? I've got "young children regularly seen wagering pocket money at blackjack tables" but no swimsuit competitions... Not a bad idea, though. Could follow with a swimming race through rivers of lava...

Motion for rivers of blood and entrails instead.

I cannot imagine how I could possibly make it more clear... or coherent.

I'd imagine that is so...

Why should we assume that there is no God when Nieztche clearly proved that God is dead?

Let me explain it in the way of a mathematical equation.

Nietzche + God = Giant Panda

Giant Panda + Knifesawchain + God = Dead God

Nietzche + God-murdering Panda = Drunk Nietzche

Alcohol Imbalance + Erectile Dsyfunction = Really, really funny Nietzche.

Does that make things clearer?

Motion for rivers of blood and entrails instead.
Nice.:D

I'd imagine that is so...
Maybe you care to enlighten me, with pure white light?

Maybe you care to enlighten me, with pure white light?

Wouldn't suit your complexion, now, would it?

Let me explain it in the way of a mathematical equation.

Nietzche + God = Giant Panda

Giant Panda + Knifesawchain + God = Dead God

Nietzche + God-murdering Panda = Drunk Nietzche

Alcohol Imbalance + Erectile Dsyfunction = Really, really funny Nietzche.

Does that make things clearer?

No, I prefer the antithesis.

Wouldn't suit your complexion, now, would it?
That is superstition...