Morals and the existence of God...
I don't think my question fits in the title so here it is...
What is the meaning of morals/ethics without the existence of God?
I'm struggling to understand why morals would matter if God didn't exist.
Like a clump of organic matter, which apparently came from nowhere (according to atheists), we decide to name Homo sapiens. This clump of organic matter one day decided to terminate the functions of another clump of organic matter (I'm paraphrasing the act of murder) and so if no one or no God knew that this act of murder happened, why would morals matter?
Or another example would be if a person murders another person and no one ever knew about it, why would it matter? I mean, athiests believe that once the murderer dies thats it and he/she never suffers any consequences for the murder.
Or how about a final example. Lets say someone invented a bomb so powerful that it could wipe out all life on earth once the bomb explodes. A person decided to detonated the bomb. All life on earth, including humans, are extinct. Why would it matter then, that this person commited mass murder? I mean, if this person was unsuccessful, he/she may wipe out half of the human race and needs to go to an international tribunal for his/her crimes.
Now, some may argue that the morals are "just there" through evolution. But if God didn't introduce the morals into being, why would it matter that someone ignores those morals and never gets caught committing a crime?
That's the thing, there is no consequence for anything. Once you die, you're dead. People make up things like God and karma as a coping mechanism when they feel they've been wronged. There is no postmortem consequence for people deemed "good" or "bad" in the opinion of others.
That's exactly why we have morals. No one should have to needlessly suffer at the hands of another person (with or without a god), that's why we have things such as manners and morals, as a guide to help minimize the wronging of others.
_________________
"At the source of every error blamed on the computer, you will find two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer."
But why would "manners and morals" matter if God didn't exist? Like in my example, if someone willfully wiped out the human race (including themselves) why would his/her action of mass murder matter? It apparently matters if they are unsuccessful and now it doesn't matter if the annihilation of the human race was successful?
Atheism and morality do create a conundrum. If there is no consequence to it, then getting away with a crime is the same as being innocent. Morality becomes whatever is convenient for the person to believe at the moment.
Atheists can be moral, but Atheists in power would simply make up a morality convenient for themselves. Of course, that is what "religious" rulers do as well. Perhaps all these "religious" rulers past and present were really Atheists.
But why would "manners and morals" matter if God didn't exist? Like in my example, if someone willfully wiped out the human race (including themselves) why would his/her action of mass murder matter? It apparently matters if they are unsuccessful and now it doesn't matter if the annihilation of the human race was successful?
It wouldn't matter, that's the sad truth. If someone had the resources and the drive to wipe out the human race, he (or she) would succeed in royally f*cking us over as a species. The only reason why someone would want to do that was because he/she couldn't reasonably grasp the concept of what's right and what's wrong. I'm sure in any culture it would be wrong to cause mass extinction of the human race.
But TenFaces is right, the concept of what's right and wrong differs amongst each person and culture.
_________________
"At the source of every error blamed on the computer, you will find two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer."
You can't prove this assertion any more than a fundamentalist Christian can prove Jesus rose from the dead.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
You can't prove this assertion any more than a fundamentalist Christian can prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Indeed I can't. I believe it's pretty much a given almost everything posted here is of the poster's own opinion.
_________________
"At the source of every error blamed on the computer, you will find two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer."
You can't prove this assertion any more than a fundamentalist Christian can prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Indeed I can't. I believe it's pretty much a given almost everything posted here is of the poster's own opinion.
Your language is that of certainty, thus inconsistent. Do you expect consistency from theists?
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
You can't prove this assertion any more than a fundamentalist Christian can prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Indeed I can't. I believe it's pretty much a given almost everything posted here is of the poster's own opinion.
Your language is that of certainty, thus inconsistent. Do you expect consistency from theists?
Well would you like me to plaster my posts with disclaimers in bold saying "REMINDER: THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION"? To me it doesn't matter what manner one speaks in, it's still an opinion.
_________________
"At the source of every error blamed on the computer, you will find two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer."
But TenFaces is right, the concept of what's right and wrong differs amongst each person and culture.
It depends on the issues. In terms of things like murder, I would say it is universally agreed that it is wrong. The only reason why in some places in the world, people tend to murder more (like "honour killings") is because they are brainwashed into believing that its ok. Even in the most "murder encouraging" cultures, there are many who will have the conviction to see that it is wrong.
What is the meaning of morals/ethics without the existence of God?
I'm struggling to understand why morals would matter if God didn't exist.
Like a clump of organic matter, which apparently came from nowhere (according to atheists), we decide to name Homo sapiens. This clump of organic matter one day decided to terminate the functions of another clump of organic matter (I'm paraphrasing the act of murder) and so if no one or no God knew that this act of murder happened, why would morals matter?
Or another example would be if a person murders another person and no one ever knew about it, why would it matter? I mean, athiests believe that once the murderer dies thats it and he/she never suffers any consequences for the murder.
Or how about a final example. Lets say someone invented a bomb so powerful that it could wipe out all life on earth once the bomb explodes. A person decided to detonated the bomb. All life on earth, including humans, are extinct. Why would it matter then, that this person commited mass murder? I mean, if this person was unsuccessful, he/she may wipe out half of the human race and needs to go to an international tribunal for his/her crimes.
Now, some may argue that the morals are "just there" through evolution. But if God didn't introduce the morals into being, why would it matter that someone ignores those morals and never gets caught committing a crime?
It would matter because you harm other people committing the crime. With or without God, society can't exist without rules. What is required for morals to have meaning, is consideration and empathy of other people, not the existence of God.
Well, Dalton_Man, I can kind of see the problem others had.
PPR does not really tend to work well with people merely stating opinions. For the most part, most people here want things that can be rebutted or refuted.
That being said... I don't see jc6chan's issue. The problem he seems to be getting at is this: "Without consequences, why would morals matter?" The problem is that morality has nothing to do with consequences. In fact, morality is about doing "the right thing" but not about personal outcome for doing that thing. Consequences is really an issue of enlightened egoism, and enlightened egoism is not morality, which is kind of the rebuttal idea to the notion that you are promoting: "If every bad act has a bad consequence for that act, in what sense is a person who does good things actually being moral?" And, this rebuttal is valid.
In any case, I really think that the issue is just that jc6chan imagines that "God does X" is a magical thing. What difference would it matter where morals came from? If morals exist, then they exist regardless of their origin, they could even be brute facts, without anything justifying that existence.
So if a dead criminal is not punished as long as he's dead, why should he be punished so long as he's alive? It seems as though any atheist who is put in jail on this earth, who finds the jail time to be "a torture" wouldn't mind committing suicide right? I mean, you commit suicide and the suffering is over. You stay alive and you will continue to be stuck in the jail cell. I guess it only works with an unrepentant atheist since one who realizes their faults may be like "I deserve this, I'm going to pay my dues".
So if a dead criminal is not punished as long as he's dead, why should he be punished so long as he's alive? It seems as though any atheist who is put in jail on this earth, who finds the jail time to be "a torture" wouldn't mind committing suicide right? I mean, you commit suicide and the suffering is over. You stay alive and you will continue to be stuck in the jail cell. I guess it only works with an unrepentant atheist since one who realizes their faults may be like "I deserve this, I'm going to pay my dues".
Um..... because we often consider punishing criminals to be the right thing to do. We don't punish dead ones because of practical reasons.
Um... ok? Given that the worst punishment we have is the death penalty, somebody opting for that over their lesser sentence doesn't seem like that much of an abridgment of justice to me. I mean, the question of suicide while in prison, just doesn't seem to be a question of justice at all, but rather a question of suicide.
Let us say that the lord your god appeared before you, and by virtue of his divinity, there could be no doubt that it was him(its not the devil, and you can tell).
He says to you, "Look jc6chan, you are a pretty decent person, so I am going to make an exception for you. If you want to kill one person, any one person, you can, and you wont be punished for it, now or after death."
He goes on to say "I am not telling you that you must, only that you can, if you so choose." and your heart is filled with the truth of his promise(you know that this is true).
and poof. Hes gone.
Would you kill someone?
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
NT mom is the bane of my existence |
24 Mar 2024, 12:00 am |
Trauma from Existence of Menstruation |
Yesterday, 4:18 am |