On Morality, Justice, and Law.

[Luftwaffels]

I've been kicking this around for a while now, and decided to actually post a thread about it.

The subject is, as the title says, Morality, Justice, and Law. To be more specific and to the point: Without God, there is no absolute morality. This we can all agree on. Morality would be relative. The problem with relative morality, is that everyone has a different idea of what moral is. If everyone has a different idea of what right and wrong is, why on earth do we have law? How lawmakers impose their ideas of right and wrong upon other humans? Is there any justice in punishing a man for doing what in his opinion was the moral thing to do? If we really believed that morality was relative, we wouldn't have law. We would live by "live and let live". This is not so, We have laws and we have a criminal justice system. So, is it just to impress your ideas of right and wrong on other people who may have another idea of what right and wrong is?


That is of course on the assumption that there is no God.
It kind of reminds me of people complaining of Christians impressing their morals on the country, but when you look at it through an atheists eyes, the very same happens just by having rules and laws governing what we can and cannot do.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Without God there is morality, there never has been nor ever will be 'absolute morality'. The entire assumption this thread is based on is incorrect.

[Gary88]

absolute morality is a completely flawed concept even within the same religion various denomenations have different takes on it and (using the bible as an example) how many people 'absolutley' follow the 10 commandments? each religions absolute is relative in the wider picture. morality has evolved with humans its was a human creation and belief in god or not doesnt affect that

[Luftwaffels]

Without God there is morality

Yes, I said that. It's called relative morality.

absolute morality is a completely flawed concept even within the same religion various denomenations have different takes on it and (using the bible as an example) how many people 'absolutley' follow the 10 commandments? each religions absolute is relative in the wider picture. morality has evolved with humans its was a human creation and belief in god or not doesnt affect that

Of course they have different takes on it, that's why they are in different denominations, but if there were a God, his set rules of right and wrong would be absolute.

It matters not if many people absolutely follow the 10 commandments, it doesn't make them any less absolute now does it? It just means that those people have done wrong, by God's definition of right and wrong.

I did not say the belief in God makes morality absolute, no no. I said the actual existence of God.

[Gary88]

fair point but you said

The problem with relative morality, is that everyone has a different idea of what moral is.

well that is still the case, gods law may be absolute but peoples observance of that is not at all. every person chooses whether or not to follow those laws and to what extent. so even though god is infalable man isnt and therefore the absence or presence of god is meaningless

i hope that makes sense

[Luftwaffels]

i hope that makes sense

Yes, it does.

well that is still the case, gods law may be absolute but peoples observance of that is not at all. every person chooses whether or not to follow those laws and to what extent. so even though god is infalable man isnt and therefore the absence or presence of god is meaningless

Granted, but we're talking through an atheists eyes here. In this situation, God does not exist, there is no supreme morality we "should" be following, regardless of if we choose to or not, and everyone has their own idea of what is moral and immoral. In such a world, the mere presence of laws and restrictions is simply forcing morals on other people.

[Gary88]

hmm, there is the common idea that an atheist has nothing to fear (no god) and so they have no absolute moral view. (i'm not saying that is your view) my view is that morals are our way of ensuring lasting society as opposed to a divine idea, i also believe that morals are a man made concept and therefore my godless morals are just as strong if not stronger than theistic ones.
i dont know if you have read anything from nietzsche, kant, hume, hobbes, mill or bentham (among others) as they have some good ideas on morals and ethics and whilst they differ in approach (cough nietzsche cough) they all have similar views on what morals achieve, a well working society which propogates our own existence (again some are theistic and hence add god into that)

basically we choose to make sacrifices (ie i cannot go out and kill someone) which we label as wrong for the gain of benefits (ie no one is going to come and kill me) over time these sacrifces and benefits have become morals and rights.

its best summed up by hobbes eternal quote on what a life without morals would be "poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short"

i hope that was relevent and please note thats a terribly simplified version of what those philosophers believed with alot of my own intepretation and bastardisation thrown in

[mongoose]

You end up with relative morality even with God, because since no one can claim to actually know what he thinks is moral, you're basically just guessing yourself, or going off of some one else's guess.

Anyone who thinks that that absence of punishment from God means that morality is worthless is just a sociopath.

[Gary88]

You end up with relative morality even with God, because since no one can claim to actually know what he thinks is moral, you're basically just guessing yourself, or going off of some one else's guess.

yeah what he said, its what i meant but much more consice and understandable

[Gwendylyn]

Without God, there is no absolute morality. This we can all agree on.

I, an atheist, disagree, and am heavily influenced by an ethics professor who first taught me this concept.

Relative morality is a flawed concept because it means that we cannot judge moral systems against each other and make claims on which is better. Everyone can look at a woman getting stoned for being raped and make the logical conclusion that it is unethical when compared to rape crisis center therapy in other countries. If you say all morality is relative, than you have to accept that being stoned and being treated are equally valid. Once you realize they aren't equally valid, then you realize that there's some guiding principle that allows you to judge one over the other.

I do think there is an absolute ethical system, that objectively we can eventually come to common conclusions about what is the most right thing to do in a situation. We may be far from figuring out exactly what is the best action, but we can at least determine good actions from bad actions a good deal of the time.

If you look at it in the most primitive way, our system of laws and ethics is simply a way to provide for the safety of our children. Protecting one's young is an instinctive thing. We make laws in order to keep society safe for our children. This includes outlawing murder except in self defense. Outlawing and punishing this action provides for better safety and health for its population. This is also a moral imperative: we do not murder because it is wrong, because we would not want someone to murder us or our family.

I remember one way of explaining the issue of 'relative' morality is to differentiate between morals and ethics. Ethics would be the absolute system that defines the rules for what is good and what is evil. Morals would simply be our interpretation of what is good and evil. An example would be the difference between stoning rapists as opposed to locking them in prison for a set time. Both draw from the same ethical system: rape is wrong. Both have very different interpretations of how to enforce that ethical sentiment.

[Chaigidel]

I dont think god has anything to do with our ethics :O

but I also dont think ethics are a unchangeable thing; they exist to keep a society working properly as mentioned above; however this system comes into place I do think it would come into place naturally simply because its necessary.

as to weed out "evil" (those who lack empathy and sympathy) and encourage "good" ( those who share pain etc and wish to help one another)

[Irishman]

Without God, there is no absolute morality.

Correct. In fact, if one believes in an absolute morality, it is a reason to believe in God.

This we can all agree on. Morality would be relative. The problem with relative morality, is that everyone has a different idea of what moral is. If everyone has a different idea of what right and wrong is, why on earth do we have law?

Now you jump from MORALLY right or wrong to LEGALLY right or wrong. Laws are there to help society function positively. These laws, stemming from the basic human understanding (though it is subconcious) of the social contract.

Over time, these socially beneficial actions needed to be given a weight stronger than "common good". Thus one exhalts his or her own culture using the idea of absolute morality.

How lawmakers impose their ideas of right and wrong upon other humans? Is there any justice in punishing a man for doing what in his opinion was the moral thing to do?

Yes, because his opinions dont matter. What matters is what is beneficial and harmful to society.

The only thing which should be punished is that which causes undue suffering.

If we really believed that morality was relative, we wouldn't have law.

Not true, as the Social Contract explains.

So, is it just to impress your ideas of right and wrong on other people who may have another idea of what right and wrong is?

Harmful and beneficial. Right and wrong are terms for a theology classroom. We are discussing the real world, and politics (yes I realize that politics very rarely represents the real world).

Even without definitive "right" and "wrong", one can determine which actions are harmful and prohibit these actions, and these are what the laws of nations are based on (ideally).


Thus, the absence of right and wrong only changes the punishment of our souls, not the punishment of our bodies.

[Dracula]

Social Contract does not exist .Exists the will of the lawmaker .

If there aren't right and wrong,there can't be also harmful and beneficial .

From the right and wrong we are sure God exists .

There is no sense in something "beneficial " if it is totally wrong thanks to you,God !

The laws are influenced by morality ideas and being traditional often superexceed the present day lawmakers' reason .The continuation of this is granted by democracy where the morality of many people will overwhelm the greed of the political class.

In a society where faith no more exists it is sure that the democracy will extinct and be changed to plutocracy and later on in tyranny .It is so because the lack of morality causes the enslavement of the weaker to be accepted and to be considered normal .Also morality extincts with extinction of faith because people find better ways to "protect " and behave to each other which result in time in tyranny .And tyranny comes inevitably because of many who have power unrestrained -inevitably one of them will win over the others(or a group over the others) .

[Silver Guard]

God produces no absolute morality. Morality is a thing solely human in nature, and the nature of humans is to have different views on what is moral. Relative morality exists no matter whether there is a God to guide these or not.

Relative morality has no effect on a democratic system on law and justice. The law is there as a "social morality" which should be unaffected by the relative morality of single people in the system. It is concerned only with protecting society, not with the whims of each person's ideals.

[removeduser_487563287433]

All morality is relative.

[mongoose]

The fact that Christian ethics are tied to the Christian God does not mean that other systems of ethics are. For example, humanism doesn't always have to involve God at all.

[IamthePope]

The subject is, as the title says, Morality, Justice, and Law. To be more specific and to the point: Without God, there is no absolute morality. This we can all agree on. Morality would be relative. The problem with relative morality, is that everyone has a different idea of what moral is. If everyone has a different idea of what right and wrong is, why on earth do we have law? How lawmakers impose their ideas of right and wrong upon other humans? Is there any justice in punishing a man for doing what in his opinion was the moral thing to do? If we really believed that morality was relative, we wouldn't have law. We would live by "live and let live". This is not so, We have laws and we have a criminal justice system. So, is it just to impress your ideas of right and wrong on other people who may have another idea of what right and wrong is?

I do think there is an absolute ethical system, that objectively we can eventually come to common conclusions about what is the most right thing to do in a situation. We may be far from figuring out exactly what is the best action, but we can at least determine good actions from bad actions a good deal of the time.

Correct. In fact, if one believes in an absolute morality, it is a reason to believe in God.

Harmful and beneficial. Right and wrong are terms for a theology classroom. We are discussing the real world, and politics (yes I realize that politics very rarely represents the real world).

Even without definitive "right" and "wrong", one can determine which actions are harmful and prohibit these actions, and these are what the laws of nations are based on (ideally).

Thus, the absence of right and wrong only changes the punishment of our souls, not the punishment of our bodies.

So without a definitive basis for 'right' and 'wrong' action, which is derived from the existence of absolute morality/God, how should we create law? There must be a common underpinning philosophy of the state that the citizenry accepts. Something secular, utilitarian, and universal.

In the absence of God, and a definable, knowable system of Right and Wrong, what we can still agree on are the apparently universal and secular principles of Classical liberalism and Utilitarianism. Classical liberalism, a secularized and earthly version of Christian ethics and principles, affirms sociopolitical Equality, Fraternity, Individual Liberty, and Universal Dignity of man(in contrast to Christianity which affirms the equality and dignity of the spirit). Utilitarianism seeks the greatest Good for the Greatest number of people. These two guiding secular principles have formed the basis of English Common law from the mid 19th century onward.

The use of liberal and utilitarian principles causes controversy however, when the precepts of the aformentioned doctrines conflicts with Christian/Theistic conception of the soul. The most notable instance is the Abortion controversy. The root of the conflict is a debate between the utilitarian good of society and the liberal equality of the mother which seem at odds with the Christian doctrine of equality and dignity of the soul. Only by recognising Absolute Morality, and the dignity and wellfare of the soul, can true Justice be acheived. In this way only can we realize the City of God on Earth.

[Irishman]

So without a definitive basis for 'right' and 'wrong' action, which is derived from the existence of absolute morality/God, how should we create law?

Exactly the way you stated. Social Contract finds what is best for the progression of society.

The use of liberal and utilitarian principles causes controversy however, when the precepts of the aformentioned doctrines conflicts with Christian/Theistic conception of the soul.

This is not a problem with these ethical views... It is a problem with societies veiw on ethics, and their dependance on religious systems for guidance (half of which is about believing in God). As it stands, abortion is not nec. a conflict. It is an issue of LIFE. An atheist can believe that an unborn child deserves human rights just as much as a christian.

Only by recognising Absolute Morality, and the dignity and wellfare of the soul, can true Justice be acheived.

You have not made a case for this at all. In fact, you seem to have made a case for the opposite. Yes, there will be contentious debate over some issues in a secular law. Abortion is one. But there is debate amoungst all ethical forms, including Catholicism. You have not shown a reason why, you have simply stated that there would be debatable issues. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, when we can debate and find what is really beneficial, we can improve society, rather than using a 2000 year old book as our guidlines, we can use OUR MINDS! We have the capability of creating a changing, relative law, not based on God's "divine" word.

If there aren't right and wrong,there can't be also harmful and beneficial .

Utter nonsense. If I kill a man, it is, by nature, harmful to society. There are exceptions to this in secular legal systems of course (self defence). Your statement has NO basis at all. Of course we can have harmful actions, those are the ones that cause HARM.

There is no sense in something "beneficial " if it is totally wrong thanks to you,God !

Ah, here we reach the point. There is no absolute "wrong" thus the only "right" is that which is beneficial. For instance, homosexuallity, Christian morals say this is WRONG, yet there is nothing harmful about it to a society. This, in a secular system, would be allowed no questions asked. This is a supreme example of Bigotry in GOD's law, thus I would rather not follow what your bible says is just punishment (stoning, raping etc). Note: the rest of the more commonly advertised morals of christianity are also covered by social contract and utilitarianism.

In a society where faith no more exists it is sure that the democracy will extinct and be changed to plutocracy and later on in tyranny .It is so because the lack of morality causes the enslavement of the weaker to be accepted and to be considered normal .Also morality extincts with extinction of faith because people find better ways to "protect " and behave to each other which result in time in tyranny .And tyranny comes inevitably because of many who have power unrestrained -inevitably one of them will win over the others(or a group over the others) .

Tell that to Buddhism and Jianism. They have developed a relative sense of morality from the concepts of "harmful" and "beneficial", and entire nations operate democratically on these principles.

98% of Japan's population are Buddhist, a faithless religion, and yet they seem to have adaquate "morals".

[IamthePope]

Exactly the way you stated. Social Contract finds what is best for the progression of society.

I deny the notion of progress in a secular industrialized society.

This is not a problem with these ethical views... It is a problem with societies veiw on ethics, and their dependance on religious systems for guidance (half of which is about believing in God). As it stands, abortion is not nec. a conflict. It is an issue of LIFE. An atheist can believe that an unborn child deserves human rights just as much as a christian.

There does seem to be a conflict when people consider the beginning of life to be the conciousness of the Brain and the development of the heart rather than the Conception and Ensoulment of the immortal soul. Although I admit that Liberalism doesn't necessarily contradict Christinianity on any of these aspects. Both philosophical systems recognise the dignity of Man. Liberalism is however in error when it does not recognise the dignity of the soul.

You have not made a case for this at all. In fact, you seem to have made a case for the opposite. Yes, there will be contentious debate over some issues in a secular law. Abortion is one. But there is debate amoungst all ethical forms, including Catholicism. You have not shown a reason why, you have simply stated that there would be debatable issues. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, when we can debate and find what is really beneficial, we can improve society, rather than using a 2000 year old book as our guidlines, we can use OUR MINDS! We have the capability of creating a changing, relative law, not based on God's "divine" word..

My apologies. I was not intending to make this case. Simply to state my view of the subject so as not to lead people into inferring that I condone liberalism and utilitarianism. That's a topic for a different thread.

On the subject of 'improving society' and 'using our minds', I do not support the ideas of 'Free Thought' and secular 'advancement'. Free thought implies a disavowal of the univeral truth and divine revalation of God, as it assumes that man is capable of comprehending the intricacies of humanity and the cosmos, as well as a disbelief in divine revelation and divine understanding through Faith. Secular advancement assumes that their can be any advancement without God. As the understanding and communion with God/Truth is synonymous with moral/intellectual/spiritual advancement I would have to say that any 'advancement' that denies God cannot be for the better. Remember that the "enlightenment" of the 17th and 18th centuries, was really a great "endarkenment"(It ended with Napoleon and 6 Million dead Europeans). But once again, this is a topic for a different thread.

Precisely, the only way to have "absolute" morality is to have a moral dictator. There is no way for any christian to know what "God" wants in morality, as the cannons, pope (dictator), and others are chosen through democratic processes.

The Holy spirit is the 'Moral Dictator' of the Catholic Church as it ultimately guides all the actions of the Church through the bishops and the Clergy. The Catholic Church is and isn't 'democratic'. While the Vicar of Christ is elected by a College of his peers(which in some ways may resemeble a republic), the Cardinals aren't beholded to any kind of 'constituency' and neither are they 'elected'. However the ultimate difference is that the Authority of the Church rests on the Holy Spirit, the renewing power of Sacrifice through the Eucharist, and Divine mandate recognised in scripture. A democratic government derives it's legitamacy from consent of the Governed. The Church doesn't govern, it leads it's flock.

As for the ability to 'Know'. While only God can truly comprehend the totality of the Cosmos, I would argue that Humans can, through Faith and Reason, gain an ultimately imperfect understanding of the universe. The Ultimate Authority on matters of Faith(not morality, which should be relatively clear to Christians) however remains the 'Moral Dictator' in the form of the Heir of St. Peter. Pope Benedict XVI!

[Silver Guard]

There does seem to be a conflict when people consider the beginning of life to be the conciousness of the Brain and the development of the heart rather than the Conception and Ensoulment of the immortal soul. Although I admit that Liberalism doesn't necessarily contradict Christinianity on any of these aspects. Both philosophical systems recognise the dignity of Man. Liberalism is however in error when it does not recognise the dignity of the soul.

Say's who? You? A book? When you have nothing to back yourself you do not present a very strong argument. If there is no soul then there is no dignity in it. Besides, the church directly crosses with scientists in this. They say the soul exists from contraception... but what if the embryo then splits to produce twins, does each have half a soul? Or maybe if two merge, which they can do until quite a long way past contraception, does this mean one person has two souls? The "dignity" of the soul as shown by the church is ridiculous.

Free thought implies a disavowal of the univeral truth and divine revalation of God, as it assumes that man is capable of comprehending the intricacies of humanity and the cosmos, as well as a disbelief in divine revelation and divine understanding through Faith.

Yes... It does all of these things... and?

Secular advancement assumes that their can be any advancement without God. As the understanding and communion with God/Truth is synonymous with moral/intellectual/spiritual advancement I would have to say that any 'advancement' that denies God cannot be for the better.

Wrong, there is no connection between moral and intellectual advancement and god. In fact faith restricts the later. Just look at the medieval period's proposer of Galen as the only person who could be used for medical knowledge, yes thats right, the man who thought the jaw bone was one bone, and that illness was caused by a disbalance of humours. Their laws against dissection stopped any surgical advancement for over a millennium. Their monopoly on the cosmos prevented the spread of the knowledge that the Earth is not center of the Universe. Even now they oppose stem cell research, the greatest medical advancement of an age.
In terms of morality, just look at America, the southern "bible belt" states have far higher murder, theft and rape rates then the northern secular ones. Religion does not boost morality, the opposite is true in America.

Remember that the "enlightenment" of the 17th and 18th centuries, was really a great "endarkenment"(It ended with Napoleon and 6 Million dead Europeans). But once again, this is a topic for a different thread.

Wrong, napoleon was the first proposer of a united Europe, his vision took two hundred years after his death to be realized. It produced the first republic (France) from which America took their constitution. It produced the first advancements in medicine and astrology since the church was founded, and began the first philosophical freedoms since the inquisition.

The Holy spirit is the 'Moral Dictator' of the Catholic Church as it ultimately guides all the actions of the Church through the bishops and the Clergy.

Which makes the holy spirit pedophilic and a supporter of sexual harassment? Also of fraud and mass slaughter?

As for the ability to 'Know'. While only God can truly comprehend the totality of the Cosmos, I would argue that Humans can, through Faith and Reason, gain an ultimately imperfect understanding of the universe. The Ultimate Authority on matters of Faith(not morality, which should be relatively clear to Christians) however remains the 'Moral Dictator' in the form of the Heir of St. Peter. Pope Benedict XVI!

So a man elected by men is suddenly divinely guided and heir of a man dead for two thousand years? Funny that...