Nietzsche Would Laugh: Morality without God

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 12/26/2007 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

We don’t need no stinking Bible to feel empathy for our fellow man. Altruism is a behavior we can develop from watching other animals. Buy a dog. It will teach you unconditional love.

A whole lot of cultures have had dogs; few have had unconditional love for anyone but their own family members.

If morality all boils down to genetics, why give out the Medal of Honor, or jail sentences?

[Mr. Silverback]

If I am right that there is no evidence of, or rational reason to believe in, a supernatural god, and you are right that there is no “morality” without a god, then there is no basis for claiming that stealing is “wrong,” or at least that it is immoral.

Exactly, but the number of atheists and agnostics who say they can develop morality--not behavior patterns, but genuine morality--on their own is legion. Even when you gave your discourse on stealing, you described it as "behavior [you] should avoid". Well, if I got an electric shock every time I reached for oatmeal instead of cold cereal, I might decide that was a behavior to avoid, but that wouldn't mean cold cereal is morally better than oatmeal.

as did religion, although I overcame that later in life as I grew wiser

That's not what David said. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"--Psalm 14:1

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually, there are quite a number of stories about someone who is claimed to have risen from the dead. Why believe the Christian one, and reject the other ones?

Our case is provable. See McDowell's More Than A Carpenter for details.

[Mr. Silverback]

I have provided a few subtle clues to indicate the fundamental difference. If you're still puzzled, talk to JimRob about enabling the "blink" tag and I'll give you another clue.

Cute, but still bereft of logic. Whether she's trying or not, she's operating from a foregone conclusion. When a Christian does the same about a Creator, they are treated like morons. And guess what? If she fails to come up with an explanation, someone else will go into the jungle and come up with one, but it will begin and end with evolution. Their god must be satisfied.

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “If morality all boils down to genetics, why give out the Medal of Honor, or jail sentences?”
____________________________
My response: I didn’t say morality all boils down to genetics. In fact, if you look at my other post directed to you, you will see that I attribute my own belief that stealing is “wrong” (immoral) to things other than a genetic predisposition. Your suggestion that medals be given for socially-desirable conduct, and jail sentences for unacceptable conduct makes perfect sense — even in a world in which no one believes the nonsense in the Bible.

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “Exactly, but the number of atheists and agnostics who say they can develop morality—not behavior patterns, but genuine morality—on their own is legion. Even when you gave your discourse on stealing, you described it as “behavior [you] should avoid”. Well, if I got an electric shock every time I reached for oatmeal instead of cold cereal, I might decide that was a behavior to avoid, but that wouldn’t mean cold cereal is morally better than oatmeal.”
____________________
My response: It appears your definition of morality requires reference to some higher authority, which begs the question of whether one can be “moral” if there is no higher authority. I don’t use your definition, but rather see morality as relative, because it is not derived from an unprovable supernatural lawgiver. Man decides morality, and man changes his mind from time to time about what is right and what is wrong. No reference to ancient literature is necessary.

You wrote: “That’s not what David said. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 14:1
___________________
My response: The fool says in his heart, “There is a god,” in the absence of any rational reason to believe in the supernatural.—BuckeyeForever 1:1

[steve-b]

BZZZZTTTT!!!

"Try" = test to see if something works. That's how science works.

[cspackler]

God is Dead, Nietzsche 1882.

Nietzsche is Dead, God 1900.

First time I ever saw that was on the Benny Hill Show back in the '80s. Cracked me up then and it still gets me.

[Mr. Silverback]

"Try" = test to see if something works. That's how science works.

I'm certain you got an A in every science class, but you must not have done very well in English. Sure, one of the definitions of "try" is to test, but it's very clear that I used it in a way that fits its other definition: attempt. You know, as in "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" or, as in this definition from the American heritage dictionary:

To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); attempt: tried to ski.

To taste, sample, or otherwise test in order to determine strength, effect, worth, or desirability: Try this casserole. Try the door.

Law
To examine or hear (evidence or a case) by judicial process.

To put (an accused person) on trial.

To subject to great strain or hardship; tax: The last steep ascent tried my every muscle.

To melt (lard, for example) to separate out impurities; render.

To smooth, fit, or align accurately.

v. intr.
To make an effort; strive.

[Mr. Silverback]

It appears your definition of morality requires reference to some higher authority, which begs the question of whether one can be “moral” if there is no higher authority. I don’t use your definition, but rather see morality as relative, because it is not derived from an unprovable supernatural lawgiver. Man decides morality, and man changes his mind from time to time about what is right and what is wrong. No reference to ancient literature is necessary.

Aw crud, I thought I had somebody looking at it in a clear-eyed manner, and that you were saying you couldn't construct a moral framework on your own, but that didn't matter because non-moral behavioral patterns replaced it.

So, how is it that you say something is wrong? I know you said that you have arrived at the idea that stealing is a behavior to avoid, but let's say someone embezzles a few thousand dollars from a multi-billion dollar corporation that will never feel the pain you've described. On what basis do you say he's committed an immoral act? Is there any sexual act, for instance, that you think is wrong? I'm sure, for instance, that you think it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. On what basis do you say it is wrong? Is it always wrong for a husband to beat his wife? What if they've mutually agreed that she makes him really angry and it's justified?

My response: I didn’t say morality all boils down to genetics. In fact, if you look at my other post directed to you, you will see that I attribute my own belief that stealing is “wrong” (immoral) to things other than a genetic predisposition. Your suggestion that medals be given for socially-desirable conduct, and jail sentences for unacceptable conduct makes perfect sense — even in a world in which no one believes the nonsense in the Bible.

Yes, but you also explained away acts of altruism with mirror-neurons...why give out the Medal of Honor when the guy was just acting under the influence of mirror-neurons? Why jail the thief when he just arrived at a different list of "behaviors" to avoid than you did? There's a guy in the central city in Milwaukee who has designated a local convenience store as "his store" and he shows up with a gun on a regular basis and takes whatever he wants. He apparently thinks that's the right way to operate...why is his definition of morality wrong? Why are the police looking for him?

My response: The fool says in his heart, “There is a god,” in the absence of any rational reason to believe in the supernatural.—BuckeyeForever 1:1

"You don't have to believe in the things I believe in, but we'll watch the world and see what passes away."--WhiteHeart

[steve-b]

To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); attempt: tried to ski.

And thereby tested the hypothesis "I can ski".

QED.

[steve-b]

It appears your definition of morality requires reference to some higher authority, which begs the question of whether one can be "moral" if there is no higher authority.

More fundamentally, it fails to address the question of why anyone should follow any specific one out of a plethora of competing claims to "higher authority". The only coherent answer is that certain claims agree with one's own reason and experience and others do not -- indicating that the moral decision is, ultimately, grounded upon reason and experience rather than upon authority.

[Mr. Silverback]

And thereby tested the hypothesis "I can ski".

Ah, but one can test a hypothesis scientifically over and over and only get one result. For example, one cannot try the hypothesis "a penny will sink in distilled water" and come up with several instances where it floats. The repeatable result will be the same each time. But one can try to ski over and over and eventually succeed.

Face it Humpty Dumpty, there is more than one meaning of the word try, and no amount of exertion on your part is going to make one into the other.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

--Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “So, how is it that you say something is wrong? ... I’m sure, for instance, that you think it’s wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. On what basis do you say it is wrong? Is it always wrong for a husband to beat his wife? What if they’ve mutually agreed that she makes him really angry and it’s justified?”
___________________
My response: “Morality” is relative, and changes over time. Society decides. Different societies view the things you mentioned in different ways. In France many years ago, they used to boil cats for entertainment. They did not consider it immoral to do so. You cannot attempt to objectify morality unless you attribute it to an outside arbiter, e.g. a god or gods. But there is no proof or rational reason for belief in a god or gods, so there is no reason to believe that divinely-inspired ancient literature instructs us as to what is right or wrong.

You wrote: “There’s a guy in the central city in Milwaukee who has designated a local convenience store as “his store” and he shows up with a gun on a regular basis and takes whatever he wants. He apparently thinks that’s the right way to operate...why is his definition of morality wrong? Why are the police looking for him?”
________________
My response: The police are looking for him because he violated a law passed by the state legislature, which codified the “morality” of the citizens, who for whatever reason, don’t like armed robbery. No resort to ancient literature is necessary.

[Mr. Silverback]

So what you're saying is that if we as a society decided tomorrow that watching cats boil or watching videos of 6 years olds getting shtupped was appropriate and moral entertainment, then that would not only be OK, but would be much better than relying on an ancient book that says it's wrong to torture animals and have sex with children?

The police are looking for him because he violated a law passed by the state legislature, which codified the “morality” of the citizens, who for whatever reason, don’t like armed robbery.

But why do they have that right? He's just arrived at a different set of behavioral priorities than you and I have.

Why should society get to define morality for the individual? Joe Blow beats his wife. When her parents object, she says he only beats her when she messes something up and makes him angry, so he's perfectly justified. Since both members of the marriage say he's justified in whooping up on her, what business is it of the state legislature to say he's not a good husband?

[Mr. Silverback]

So what you're saying is that if we as a society decided tomorrow that watching cats boil or watching videos of 6 years olds getting shtupped was appropriate and moral entertainment, then that would not only be OK, but would be much better than relying on an ancient book that says it's wrong to torture animals and have sex with children?

The police are looking for him because he violated a law passed by the state legislature, which codified the “morality” of the citizens, who for whatever reason, don’t like armed robbery.

But why do they have that right? He's just arrived at a different set of behavioral priorities than you and I have.

Why should society get to define morality for the individual? Joe Blow beats his wife. When her parents object, she says he only beats her when she messes something up and makes him angry, so he's perfectly justified. Since both members of the marriage say he's justified in whooping up on her, what business is it of the state legislature to say he's not a good husband?

[Gumdrop]

You have hit upon something I have likewise pondered when reading the list of questions at a blood drive. At least half of the questions relate to sexual morality, and the serious, indeed life-threatening consequences of such a life style as it relates to the ability to donate blood.

One of the most enigmatic questions of our time ought to be addressed to the radical homosexual lobby - “Just who do you think donates blood at the local bloodmobile? How would the blood banks that save so many lives, especially those with AIDS, continue to function without the generous donations of life’s blood from committed religious people?

[Mr. Silverback]

Interesting thought.

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “But why do they have that right? He’s just arrived at a different set of behavioral priorities than you and I have. ...Why should society get to define morality for the individual?”
___________________
Answer: There are no “rights” in a godless world, other than whatever “rights” society decides to accept. You ask, why should society get to define morality (what is “right” and “wrong”)? The Answer is: Because there is no else to do it. (There are no supernatural gods other than the imaginary ones created in the image of man.)

[Mr. Silverback]

Answer: There are no “rights” in a godless world, other than whatever “rights” society decides to accept. You ask, why should society get to define morality (what is “right” and “wrong”)? The Answer is: Because there is no else to do it. (There are no supernatural gods other than the imaginary ones created in the image of man.)

Why are you afraid of these questions?

If we as a society decided tomorrow that watching cats boil or watching videos of 6 year olds getting raped was appropriate and moral entertainment, then that would not only be OK, but would be much better than relying on an ancient book that says it's wrong to torture animals and have sex with children?

Why can't Joe Blow and his wife define their own morality? Why can't they decide it's OK for him to beat her if she makes him angry? Aren't they just as able to define their morality as the state legislature?

Here's one I hadn't asked before: Tomorrow the state legislature declares that anyone who has posted on an internet forum using a screen name with "forever" in it is guilty of an evil crime punishable by death. Since men define their own morality, you are now evil and deserving of death...right? Surely, you'll report for a speedy execution.

Getting an idea why thee Founders were so adamant that uman rights are giveen by God, not granted by the whim of a king or parliament?