I have a similar post in Humanities but this one is more specific.

We lately read C&P (Crime & Punishment, for the uninitiated) in English and the question I got from it was "where is the moral authority without god?"

The question is pretty simple. What forces somebody to uphold a certain morality in the absence of a moral authority (god)? Are there a set of universal morals a priori in nature, or is it all based on societal imposition?

A stipulation in my humanities topic, and a stipulation in this one, is: don't bring up retribution. Obviously in real life one won't kill someone for fear of retribution (from the justice system or from others), and this would really hamper the discussion of morals.

Now you're probably saying "this topic isn't neutral at all!" because I'm asking about the lack of moral authority, and you Christians will believe that there is a moral authority. Go to hell. It's a discussion and saying "GOD IS THE MORAL AUTHORITY" will ruin it also. Assume absence of authority (if it makes you feel better, god still exists but doesn't legislate morals, so to speak).

Quick summary: If there's no god, from whence cometh morals?

I don't know why you think god created morals, but anyways... Basic morals are collected from the instincts, collective conciousness, and human and cultural values of the masses.

They're a facet of reality; Therefore they're only moral because we're all agreeing that they're moral.

Cheers,

Lost

Yeah what he said.

Very well put Lost. Simple, concise, and correct. I am in complete agreement. Morals are created by humans to protect themselves and to control eachother. Quite ingeniously constructed system - so well designed that one "feels" not thinks that they should or should not do a certain thing.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Very well put Lost. Simple, concise, and correct. I am in complete agreement. Morals are created by humans to protect themselves and to control eachother. Quite ingeniously constructed system - so well designed that one "feels" not thinks that they should or should not do a certain thing.

Except those of us that are cold and dead inside. Pure logic.

Most people dont need a god to posess a conscience

And for those that dont, i doubt god can help

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

If there's no god, from whence cometh morals?

Most of the laws set out by religious doctrine, and not by accident but by design, are intended to do at least one of two things:

To control the behavior of human beings and to benefit from that control.

OR

To force human beings to interact in such a way that preserves the public welfare.

Think about every bit of religious doctrine you've ever read, and see if it fits the bill.

Ten Commandments? Well, let's see. 1-4 are about preserving the integrity of the monotheistic faith. I mean, a religion isn't much good if it doesn't put in place certain rules to ensure its survival and spread. 5-10 are all about keeping people from getting angry at each other. We couldn't live together in relative peace so long as murder and adultery were legal, could we?

The Qur'an says something about how an unclean person should not handle the book itself. Why? Well, perhaps in a society before the invention of the printing press, an entire village might only have one copy of the book. Allowing a potentially sick person to touch it might foster the spread of disease through the population.

Morality is pretty much a function of necessity or practicality. Is it moral in modern society for a man to take more than one wife? No. Why not? Clearly, if every rich man had ten wives and every poor man had none, there'd be millions of sexually frustrated, impoverished men out there with no outlet for their rage. The result -- war.

Was it moral for men in ancient times to take more than one wife when at adulthood perhaps one out of every two men had died by way of war or disease? Debatable. The human species has ways of maximizing its reproductive potential, and often times it's our capacity for higher reasoning that finds excuses or rationalizations for these things after our animalistic side has decided they're okay.

It's worth pointing out, however, IMHO, that

those bits of doctrine which promote control can't be justified by practical definitions or by secular morality.

Those bits of doctrine which promote good conduct and the public welfare usually CAN be so justified.

LostCause:

Bullshit.

A search for morality without the belief in a world of being - the essential principle upon which the belief in God rests - eventually leads to nihilism.

What you're talking about is a Kantian theory of the categorical imperative, ethical rationalism - of an alleged 'autonomous morality.' However, once morality has lost its infallible religious root - the original and effective relationship of man with a higher world - it ceases to have any invulnerable foundation. The only resistance to its questioning is a "Thou shalt" echo from ancient, living laws. In any attempt to give firm content and subsequent justification, the ground easily gives way. In reality, there is no "imperative" at this stage of human 'development' that does not imply a presumed, axiomatic value of certain unexplained premises that depend simply on a personal equation or on the accepted state of affairs in a given society.

Once this ethical system collapses, it is followed by a kind of 'social ethics'. Renouncing any intrinsic or absolute basis for morality, the justification proposed for what is left of ethical norms is whatever suits the individual for his own advantage and for his material tranquility in social life. Once internal restraint is abandoned, ever action and behavior appears licit so long as the outer sanctions of society's laws can be avoided, or if one is indifferent to them. This is the orientation of the bourgeois world - toward social idols and conformism founded on convenience, cowardice, hypocrisy, or inertia.

This set of circumstances is pregnant with disaster, and the only possible destiny for it is to burst in a tidal wave of smothered dignity and utter despair.

Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead" will be followed soon after by "Man is dead."

Tyrant: You're a fool. Kant's Cat. Imp. is universal. It will be moral forever, if it is applied correctly. The fact that you're arguing against it only shows your lack of knowledge on the device.

Tyrant, we are all quite impressed with your use of diction and your extensive vocabulary. You are clearly studying this subjective in some higher institution of education. However, though I may be speaking for myself only, I do not understand a damned thing. If you don't mind, a layman's explanation would be great.

deptstoremook:

Kant's description of the Categorical Imperative:

1. Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.

2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end.

3. So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

All three of these automatically presuppose, however arguably justifiable, that the protection and respect of humanity is the ultimate and highest goal to which one can aspire. This sentiment coincided with the birth of humanism during the Renaissance. It is therefore far from universal.

chaski86:

Sure thing.

Four stages - one speculative - based on the collapse of the previous stage's foundation.

Stage 1: Ethics based on religion.

"You are to do things according to God's will."

Stage 2: Ethics based on global sense of reason.

"You are to do things according to what everyone automatically knows is right."

Stage 3: Ethics based on opportunity.

"You are to do things according to what you can achieve by doing them."

Stage 4: (imminent nihilistic prophecy) An absence of any ethics; ethics with no basis.

"There is no reason why you should do anything."

Better?

[Edit: Stage 3 should be seen in more of a sense of social cohesion rather than opportunism. It's kind of like molding your ethics to the expectations of society while still acquiring what you want out of life. Felt I should clarify.]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 01-13-2005).]

Even if Kant's morality is biased (as I'm sure Derrida would be sure to tell you ), when it is applied to certain actions it will always and forever be moral. Actions have, according to Kant, universal morality. That's it.

How about killing a man to protect your family?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

How about killing a man to protect your family?

CI only looks at acts without motivation. What you're describing is a hypothetical imperative.

Killing for defense is a hypothetical imperative but it fails the CI, which only looks at the act. Try again, but Kant is tough and I'm good at using him.

[This message has been edited by deptstoremook (edited 01-13-2005).]

If it only looks at the act, then it can't be universal.

Because that act can be applied to endless scenarios.

quote:Originally posted by Fuck:

Yeah what he said.

SHE

CI only looks at acts without motivation. What you're describing is a hypothetical imperative.

Hypothetical imperatives can be dismissed, since we are ultimately talking about an absolute moral code independent of God. This code cannot be subject to change by the whims of circumstantial context, for this prevents it from being universal, by virtue of its very definition.

So, again, I ask: if every action has, according to Kant, a universal morality (universal meaning indifferent to context, morality meaning holding a human empathy to be the highest moral standard), how about killing a man to protect your family?

Tyrant: Immoral because it fails both parts of the categorical imperative.

1. Universal Law

Fails, because you wouldn't want somebody to kill you in self-defense.

2. Men as means and ends

The man you kill isn't part of the ends.

Tribe: Read up on the CI and Kant, CI is very specific.

[This message has been edited by deptstoremook (edited 01-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Stage 3: Ethics based on opportunity.

"You are to do things according to what you can achieve by doing them."

[Edit: Stage 3 should be seen in more of a sense of social cohesion rather than opportunism. It's kind of like molding your ethics to the expectations of society while still acquiring what you want out of life. Felt I should clarify.]

[/B]

I'm saying this out of how i understand you vs. the way in which i have observed life..

I'm not argueing, this is more for clarification between either you or me...

I think your initial stage three(with the implication of opportunity), and your edited stage three, in my opinion (from how i see the way the world is right now)

should actually be two seperate stages, that can coexist, and depending on whether there is "revival"(for lack of a better word), would determine which stage 3 would dominate.