Is God necessary for morality?

[Ginkgo]

Well, of course not.

comments?

Hmmm... a trivial conclusion. A person who has no belief in God can behave in any way he/she happens to choose...moral, immoral, amoral...whatever suits his/her disposition. That's not at all a surprising claim...and one hardly worth even stating, since it has no important implications.

What's the real problem is this: Can a person who does not believe in God have justification in condemning evil or advocating for good? Can he/she explain why one is morally right and the other morally wrong?

And the answer, of course, is "No."

Of course they can. A person can criticize another person's ethics based on their own ethical theory. It depends on what ethical theory you hold. If I were a Kantian I could criticize someone who tells lies.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, of course not.

comments?

Hmmm... a trivial conclusion. A person who has no belief in God can behave in any way he/she happens to choose...moral, immoral, amoral...whatever suits his/her disposition. That's not at all a surprising claim...and one hardly worth even stating, since it has no important implications.

What's the real problem is this: Can a person who does not believe in God have justification in condemning evil or advocating for good? Can he/she explain why one is morally right and the other morally wrong?

And the answer, of course, is "No."

Of course they can. A person can criticize another person's ethics based on their own ethical theory. It depends on what ethical theory you hold. If I were a Kantian I could criticize someone who tells lies.

Not justifiably.

You could only say, "Well, I prefer to think Kant was right, though I have no reasons to know he was more right than anyone else, and though as a secular person, I don't believe the morality he articulated was objectively referring to anything -- and even though you are a utilitarian, a Zoroastrian or an amoralist, I criticize you based on my gratuitous preference for Kant."

Do you suppose anyone would take that seriously? Would they have reason to?

[Ginkgo]

Hmmm... a trivial conclusion. A person who has no belief in God can behave in any way he/she happens to choose...moral, immoral, amoral...whatever suits his/her disposition. That's not at all a surprising claim...and one hardly worth even stating, since it has no important implications.

What's the real problem is this: Can a person who does not believe in God have justification in condemning evil or advocating for good? Can he/she explain why one is morally right and the other morally wrong?

And the answer, of course, is "No."

Of course they can. A person can criticize another person's ethics based on their own ethical theory. It depends on what ethical theory you hold. If I were a Kantian I could criticize someone who tells lies.

Not justifiably.

You could only say, "Well, I prefer to think Kant was right, though I have no reasons to know he was more right than anyone else, and though as a secular person, I don't believe the morality he articulated was objectively referring to anything -- and even though you are a utilitarian, a Zoroastrian or an amoralist, I criticize you based on my gratuitous preference for Kant."

Do you suppose anyone would take that seriously? Would they have reason to?

There are good reasons to believe Kant was right, his ethics are objective and therefore universal. It isn't a matter of preference, rather it is a matter of analysis and how well he ethics stacks up against other ethical theories.So, it's more than just a preference.

BTW I think we are straying away from the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note my OP;

Morality is Confined to the Human Species.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29722

Since God is not of the human species, God is not necessary for Morality-proper.

Also, since,
God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
the question of God for is a non-starter for deliberation of real Morality.

Moral facts as moral standard must be universal to all humans.
But what is supposedly morality from God is relative to the respective holy texts [compiled by men], where what is 'good' to God is actually evil to humanity.

• Example the morality of the God, Allah, condones the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion [see Quran 5:33].
  Other examples are the acceptance of slavery, rape, beating, etc. in the various theistic commands from a God.

Morality-proper is independent of religion, theism, politics, customs, traditions, culture, etc.

What is Morality-proper is inherent and confined to the Human Species.

The problem is the inherent potential for morality-proper is still undeveloped in the majority of people.

However it is very evident there is trend of this moral potential had been unfolding since >100,000 years ago within humanity to the present.

Thus the effective strategy for the majority of humans is to grasp the actual potential of the inherent morality-proper and understands its mechanisms so that the average Moral Quotient can increase expeditiously in the future.

[Belinda]

Uwot wrote:

Who now needs God are Islamist autocrats and such ill- educated / indoctrinated subjects they rule over...(quotes Belinda)
I really hope you don't mean that.

have you perhaps misapprehended something?

ethnic peoples, including as we are informed many US citizens, who need a focus for holding on to their embattled anti-science cultures: (quotes Belinda)

Yep. And those of us with bleeding hearts think educating poor white people so that they can rise above being trailer/council trash would be a really good idea.

It's not entirely bleeding hearts it's also providing opportunities for unused talents.

frightened or superstitious individuals who in desperation appeal for supernatural aid:(quotes Belinda)
I would hate to take away anyone's comfort, but there are real motherfuckers who take advantage of frightened and superstitious people.

I support equal educational opportunity for all including necessary enrichments for deprived people.

religious institutions that have doctrines that cannot easily move with the times .(quotes Belinda)
Well, anyone stupid enough to insist they know the truth should prepare for every conceivable fact.

People are still being indoctrinated including in our free democracies.Many people are what you call "stupid". Universal education including tertiary education in the humanities is needed to protect individuals against hubristic doctrines. There will be individuals who can't learn but those will be a lot fewer in number.

I don't much like the tone of your reply, uwot.(quotes Belinda)
I'm sorry to hear that. How much should I change to suit you better?

Scepticism is okay but I detected a note of cynicism.

Despite the lamentable history of God the moral message of Jesus Christ and other good men has been carried like a tattered dirtied torn banner. Our morality is founded upon the ethics of such men as Jesus of Nazareth.(quotes Belinda)Leaving aside the question of whether Jesus really existed (he didn't), does anything he said amount to any more than 'be nice to people'? I mean, it's a great message, but do you need the son of god to convince you?

I don't need any supernatural beings. I do need the examples of great men to inspire and inform me.
True, the historicity of great men needs constant revision as we are seeing from the Black Lives Matter campaign. The Sermon on the Mount has a lot of staying power and it's embeddded in the larger story of a life of goodness. You would not throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course they can. A person can criticize another person's ethics based on their own ethical theory. It depends on what ethical theory you hold. If I were a Kantian I could criticize someone who tells lies.

Not justifiably.

You could only say, "Well, I prefer to think Kant was right, though I have no reasons to know he was more right than anyone else, and though as a secular person, I don't believe the morality he articulated was objectively referring to anything -- and even though you are a utilitarian, a Zoroastrian or an amoralist, I criticize you based on my gratuitous preference for Kant."

Do you suppose anyone would take that seriously? Would they have reason to?

There are good reasons to believe Kant was right, his ethics are objective and therefore universal.

Actually, there aren't.

His claim that they were is not good enough for anybody, nor would anyone else's be, without sound reasons to believe it's true. It's necessary to show that even if somebody else were by preference, say, a Utilitarian or a Virtue Ethicist, a Pragmatist or an Emotivist, a Nihilist or an Islamist, that Kant's ethics would still be obligatory and right. And this, nobody has been able to show since Kant first claimed to have derived a categorical imperative.

BTW I think we are straying away from the OP.

Not even a little.

You asserted that God was not necessary for morality. And we're discussing how that could come about, if it could. So far, you say we must all become Kantians; I say, "Prove it."

If you have the means to show you were right, then I'd like to see those means. I'm intrigued by your confidence.

[Skepdick]

Is God necessary for morality? Wrong question!

Is morality necessary? For what?

[Ginkgo]

Not justifiably.

You could only say, "Well, I prefer to think Kant was right, though I have no reasons to know he was more right than anyone else, and though as a secular person, I don't believe the morality he articulated was objectively referring to anything -- and even though you are a utilitarian, a Zoroastrian or an amoralist, I criticize you based on my gratuitous preference for Kant."

Do you suppose anyone would take that seriously? Would they have reason to?

There are good reasons to believe Kant was right, his ethics are objective and therefore universal.

Actually, there aren't.

His claim that they were is not good enough for anybody, nor would anyone else's be, without sound reasons to believe it's true. It's necessary to show that even if somebody else were by preference, say, a Utilitarian or a Virtue Ethicist, a Pragmatist or an Emotivist, a Nihilist or an Islamist, that Kant's ethics would still be obligatory and right. And this, nobody has been able to show since Kant first claimed to have derived a categorical imperative.

BTW I think we are straying away from the OP.

Not even a little.

You asserted that God was not necessary for morality. And we're discussing how that could come about, if it could. So far, you say we must all become Kantians; I say, "Prove it."

If you have the means to show you were right, then I'd like to see those means. I'm intrigued by your confidence.

I am not saying that everyone should become Kantians, I am suggesting that when people adopt a moral they they usually have good reasons for doing so.
Are you saying that Kantian ethics is not objective?

I am not sure what you want me to prove.

[Ginkgo]

Is God necessary for morality? Wrong question!

Is morality necessary? For what?

We all need moral code to live by, unless of course you are an amoralist.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you saying that Kantian ethics is not objective?

Not only am I saying it, so is every moral philosopher since Kant.

I am not sure what you want me to prove.

I wanted you to show that Kant was a solution to how one could have a justified, necessary, objective morality without reference to God. And I pointed out that there were other moral systems, both secular and religious, that you would have to show wrong, as well. For they all contradict Kant.

After all, you certainly seemed to think appealing to Kant was some sort of explanation for how a morality without God was possible...

[Ginkgo]

Are you saying that Kantian ethics is not objective?

Not only am I saying it, so is every moral philosopher since Kant.

I am not sure what you want me to prove.

I wanted you to show that Kant was a solution to how one could have a justified, necessary, objective morality without reference to God. And I pointed out that there were other moral systems, both secular and religious, that you would have to show wrong, as well. For they all contradict Kant.

After all, you certainly seemed to think appealing to Kant was some sort of explanation for how a morality without God was possible...

Kantian ethics makes no reference to God. Kant's ethics is both objective and universal because it is a moral theory that necessarily binds us to a moral duty. I would disagree that all other moral theories contradict Kant as I will show below. I am not saying that everyone should be a Kantian,people are free to reject Kant and favor another ethical theory if they so choose.

Traditionally ethical theories are classified as either teleological or deontological. Teleological theories claim that the moral value of an action is determined by their consequences or results. Deontological theories on the other hand, deny this and highlight the importance of motive or the kind of act involved in determining what is morally required. Ethical theorists reject Kant on the basis that it is not teleological, not because they believe Kant's ethics are not objective.

BTW Your claim that, "Not only I am saying it, so is every moral philosopher since Kant" is incorrect. All I need to do is find one moral philosopher who says Kantian ethics is objective to prove your statement false.

[Belinda]

Ginkgo wrote:

Traditionally ethical theories are classified as either teleological or deontological. Teleological theories claim that the moral value of an action is determined by their consequences or results. Deontological theories on the other hand, deny this and highlight the importance of motive or the kind of act involved in determining what is morally required. Ethical theorists reject Kant on the basis that it is not teleological, not because they believe Kant's ethics are not objective.

Teleological theories( or 'consequentialist ethics') are not enough to define good action because most consequences of a single act are unintended and unknown.

Deontological theories are not enough to define the good action because deontologically our duty is to the good and we cannot define the good. The way we as individuals learn what is good is like how we learn what is dog; by experiencing several phenomena to which the label 'good' or the label 'dog' is attributed.

There are certain methods for attaining more good. One is by way of knowledge including self knowledge and humility. Another method is via renunciation of egotistic wants and perceived needs.
Another method is to use the Golden Rule which needs empathy itself a kind of knowledge.

God is a concept usually taken to involve supernatural good which is inbuilt into nature and so is absolutely imperative as to what is good and what is evil. Obviously this ground for ethics comes with the enthusiastic assent of people who seek power over others.

The strength of Christian ethics is they reflect not only supernatural good but also someone's life which is a paradigm case of a life well lived.

[Skepdick]

Is God necessary for morality? Wrong question!

Is morality necessary? For what?

We all need moral code to live by, unless of course you are an amoralist.

You answer is circular given the question I asked you.

To say that you need morality, is to say that morality is necessary. What is it necessary for?

The label I attach to myself is immaterial.

[Belinda]

Skepdick, may I add who is it necessary for, and what does morality accomplish.

Burns was opposed to church morality and the Kirk was a great supporter of the Scottish conservative establishment which viewed sex as too liberating for the poor .
"Morality thou deadly bane, thy tens o thousands thou hast slain"

[Immanuel Can]

Kantian ethics makes no reference to God. Kant's ethics is both objective and universal because it is a moral theory that necessarily binds us to a moral duty. I would disagree that all other moral theories contradict Kant as I will show below. I am not saying that everyone should be a Kantian,people are free to reject Kant and favor another ethical theory if they so choose.

What that means is that Kant is not providing us with the requisite moral information. Other systems, some of which flatly contradict his conclusions, are being treated as equal and alternative.

So take, for example, Kant's claim that you should turn your friend over to soldiers if hiding him implicates you in a lie. Many people would instinctively find that difficult to accept, and a Utilitarian would flatly reject that sort of slavish commitment to an abstract idea which results in harm to your friend. If you say both systems are equal, then that means neither tells us anything about what is right or wrong to do in the situation. Neither gives us "morality."

Traditionally ethical theories are classified as either teleological or deontological.

You forgot Virtue Ethics, and also Pragmatism, Nihilism, Islamism, Judeo-Christian morality, Emotivism, Feminist Ethics, the End of Ethics school....and so on. The Deontological-Consequentialist distinction has only been drawn by some, and only since Kant and Mill/Bentham. And even then, a strong current of Aristotelian Ethics was still being used in various places. So that's just not the case.

Ethical theorists reject Kant on the basis that it is not teleological, not because they believe Kant's ethics are not objective.

Actually, they have MANY reasons for rejecting Kant, but the claim "he's not teleological" is not one I've ever heard.

But even you just admitted Kant's theory is not objectively right, because you countenance rival theories and accord them equal standing. That's a confession that Kant is not obligatory, not universally right, and certainly not the high road to moral truth. Anybody else's ethical theory is just as good as his, you're saying.