A world without God: Ethics, Morals, Law, and Order?

[André Masséna]

Okay, let us first assume there is No God at all. We are living in a universe created completely naturally and there is no God or higher being.

Based on that assumption, we can also assume that morality is 100% relative to each and every single person. We can also throw in Ethics there. Which, admittedly is more broad than simply "right and wrong" but for arguements sake, let us limit it to that.

So, here we are. Who decides what is right and wrong? Who decides what morality is the best morality to base law upon?

If we are still assuming that morality and ethics is 100% relative, we must then assume that there is no "correct" morality or ethical code.

Following that assumption, we must come to the conclusion that without a superior being, be it God or multiple diety's, there is no Right and there is no Wrong. There is no concept of justice. There is no "good" or "evil".
There is only opinions.

Alas, our law system, and very civilization is founded upon principles of justic, law, right. So why are we expected to follow "the rules" or agree to obey the laws set down by mere men? If they have no moral implications why must we obey? Is it fear? Are we merely being 'good' (again, in this scenario there is no good) because we do not want to be punished for....doing nothing wrong? Do we follow the rules then, because we live in a tyranny, and to not is to risk harm unto ourselves?

Hobbes brought the idea of the Social Contract. He said that in a world without order, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" Therefore we must surrender our freedom to do what we wanted all the time to Strong Central authority in order to avoid this. Sounds good eh? Is it really? Which is better? Freedom or Safety? Do we really have either? And furthermore, is it "wrong" that life be that way? Unpleasant, for sure. But in a world of no absolute morality, who's to say that "the Strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must" is wrong? You cannot argue that from a moral or ethical perspective.

Also, if it is true that we must surrender our freedom to live as we choose in order to sucure secuirity for ourselves, then is this "social" contract applicable to those born after the foundations of our society? I never agreed to surrender my right to murder, or my right to steal, or rape, or attack other people. I don't do these things, due to my moral views, but I never told my Government "protect me, and I won't break your laws." Nor did any of us who weren't around to vote our own countries into existance.
John Locke was also a beleiver in the social contract, yet he beleived that human nature was less brutal and that in the natural state, all humans were equal and independent, but that we still needed to surrender ultimate freedom to form society. My question also applies to Locke's theory.

So, in conclusion...in a world without God, are laws really meaningless? Do our lack of absolute morals and universal ethics, as well as our lack of agreement to surrender rights to our Governments and societies mean that in the end, without God, we are living in slavery, we just don't realize it?

[Garrigan]

What are you suggesting? That without God we'd all just go around killing, raping and looting?

I'm an atheist, I dont refrain from the above things so I can be rewarded eternally in heaven, I dont do them because I couldnt live with myself if I did.

Are you saying that the only thing that stops you from murdering and raping is fear of punishment? If so, what does that say about you?

Following that assumption, we must come to the conclusion that without a superior being, be it God or multiple diety's, there is no Right and there is no Wrong. There is no concept of justice. There is no "good" or "evil".
There is only opinions.

I dont believe in a God, yet I never plan on raping and murdering. As (I imagine) do most Atheists.

I agree that "right" and "wrong" are relative. I will refrence a post I made at another forum about evil;

Both Stalin and Hitler were abused and beaten as children, Hitler ended up on the streets, even though he was a talented artist, and the people he found to blame for this were the Jews.

Evil is very hard to define. On a large scale all you need is instinct, Hitler and Stalin MAY have believed they were doing right by their country as a whole, but they must be called evil, for they caused more pain and suffering than good.

But on a lesser level it is harder to define. I thik it depends on society. In medieval times if you strapped bull horns to your head and danced naked round a bonfire under a full moon, you'd have been thought of as evil. But not today, eccentric? Yes, evil? No.

A hundred years ago a child beating a smaller child may have been seen as "Building Character"or something else. Now? Bullying, discrimination, etc. So it depends on the morals and values of your society.


So basically, yes. I do agree that "Evil" and "Wrong" are open to interpretation, but instinct is often enough, and most people's instinct say murder and rape are wrong. This isnt unique to God-fearing theists.

Alas, our law system, and very civilization is founded upon principles of justic, law, right. So why are we expected to follow "the rules" or agree to obey the laws set down by mere men? If they have no moral implications why must we obey? Is it fear? Are we merely being 'good' (again, in this scenario there is no good) because we do not want to be punished for....doing nothing wrong? Do we follow the rules then, because we live in a tyranny, and to not is to risk harm unto ourselves?

I disagree. Moral principles apply with or without a supreme deity. If you only refrain from "Moral Evils" to avoid punishment then you dont actually believe in those principles, do you?

So, in conclusion...in a world without God, are laws really meaningless? Do our lack of absolute morals and universal ethics, as well as our lack of agreement to surrender rights to our Governments and societies mean that in the end, without God, we are living in slavery, we just don't realize it?

Again, I disagree. We dont lack universal ethics and morals. A man who sees no problem with murder is abnormal. That shows that the vast majority believe that muder is wrong.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

What are you suggesting? That without God we'd all just go around killing, raping and looting?

I would. No morality, no conscience, no boundaries. Do whatever you want. Kill 6 million jews and send half your country to death camps in the arctic; it wont matter, because its not wrong. No God = no morality. It is the morality of whatever man decides is right, basically. If I say murder is moral, whose to stop me?

[Garrigan]

I would. No morality, no conscience, no boundaries. Do whatever you want. Kill 6 million jews and send half your country to death camps in the arctic; it wont matter, because its not wrong. No God = no morality. It is the morality of whatever man decides is right, basically. If I say murder is moral, whose to stop me?

Then how come all Atheists dont do that?

I've lived 16 years without raping, looting or murdering. Does that make me an exception?

[André Masséna]

What are you suggesting? That without God we'd all just go around killing, raping and looting?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that there really is no reason not to. If some one's own personal idea of right and wrong didn't exclude rape or murder, why then should they not? Because Person A's morality is better than Person B's?

I'm an atheist, I dont refrain from the above things so I can be rewarded eternally in heaven, I dont do them because I couldnt live with myself if I did.

Which is good, imo, but it doesn't disprove my theory. Just because you don't think it's right. If anything it goes to show that you are going to do, and not do, what you think is right and wrong. Not based upon any morality other than your own.

Are you saying that the only thing that stops you from murdering and raping is fear of punishment? If so, what does that say about you?

Not at all. If there is no God, then punishment is the only reason not to do certain things, however. Who has the "right" to decide what is punishable?

I dont believe in a God, yet I never plan on raping and murdering. As (I imagine) do most Atheists.

I agree that "right" and "wrong" are relative. I will reference a post I made at another forum about evil;

Both Stalin and Hitler were abused and beaten as children, Hitler ended up on the streets, even though he was a talented artist, and the people he found to blame for this were the Jews.

Evil is very hard to define. On a large scale all you need is instinct, Hitler and Stalin MAY have believed they were doing right by their country as a whole, but they must be called evil, for they caused more pain and suffering than good.

But on a lesser level it is harder to define. I thik it depends on society. In medieval times if you strapped bull horns to your head and danced naked round a bonfire under a full moon, you'd have been thought of as evil. But not today, eccentric? Yes, evil? No.

A hundred years ago a child beating a smaller child may have been seen as "Building Character"or something else. Now? Bullying, discrimination, etc. So it depends on the morals and values of your society.


So basically, yes. I do agree that "Evil" and "Wrong" are open to interpretation, but instinct is often enough, and most people's instinct say murder and rape are wrong. This isnt unique to God-fearing theists.

I am not arguing that without a belief in God, you are prone to be a barbarian murderer. I am suggesting that logically, there is no reason to follow the rules of society without God, and Absolute Morality. The law has no backing other than an opinion. Which is rather weak to be establishing codes of justice and whatnot.

I disagree. Moral principles apply with or without a supreme deity. If you only refrain from "Moral Evils" to avoid punishment then you dont actually believe in those principles, do you?

I'm not suggesting people only refrain from killing because of God. I am suggesting that without God we have no reason to punish or prosecute people who brake laws. As we have no grounds to dictate what is right and wrong, good and evil.

Again, I disagree. We dont lack universal ethics and morals. A man who sees no problem with murder is abnormal. That shows that the vast majority believe that muder is wrong.

Normality is really irrelevant. If there's a man with an IQ of 180 in a world of people with IQ's of 30...he is abnormal. It doesn't mean he is 'wrong' in whatever his beliefs are. Or, how about this analogy.

I like sugar on my cereal. The norm, however, is to put salt on the cereal. I am abnormal in that sense, but I'm not 'wrong' in my wanting to sugar up my breakfast.

Well, you are assuming that there is no fundamental moral, which is wrong. If there is no god, and no fundamental moral, then yes, there would be anarchy. But that is not the case. There is no god and there are fundamental morals.

Let's say there is a group of Africans who live primarily on their own. Their culture states that killing is okay, whether for pleasure or necessity. Under the assumption there is no absolute morality, how can anyone say "no, that's wrong"

That cultures practice of killing people for no reason, would just as acceptable as ours of not killing each other. We could offer no arguement to prove that it's wrong.

Good debate so far guys.

[Garrigan]

OK. Nice Post.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that there really is no reason not to. If some one's own personal idea of right and wrong didn't exclude rape or murder, why then should they not? Because Person A's morality is better than Person B's?

True enough. But I still think morals are usually enough. On smaller issues, I agree that there are huge variants on morality. But I'd say on the issue of murder, there is a fairly universal view that it is unacceptable.

Which is good, imo, but it doesn't disprove my theory. Just because you don't think it's right. If anything it goes to show that you are going to do, and not do, what you think is right and wrong. Not based upon any morality other than your own.

Fair point, but again I'd say that most people would agree with me, but that is purely an opinion (and a dear wish)

Not at all. If there is no God, then punishment is the only reason not to do certain things, however. Who has the "right" to decide what is punishable?

Well, most western countries now are fairly secular.I wouldnt say that the laws are based on religion so much anymore. And I certainly wouldnt say that the "accepted" morals of the west (no rape, no murder etc.) come from Christianity or Judaism.

I am not arguing that without a belief in God, you are prone to be a barbarian murderer. I am suggesting that logically, there is no reason to follow the rules of society without God, and Absolute Morality. The law has no backing other than an opinion. Which is rather weak to be establishing codes of justice and whatnot.

True, but that more of a political issue than a religious one. Does the Govt.really have a right to dictate what we can and cannot do?

I'm not suggesting people only refrain from killing because of God. I am suggesting that without God we have no reason to punish or prosecute people who brake laws. As we have no grounds to dictate what is right and wrong, good and evil.

Na, again. Most of the laws now (in the West) are fairly Secular, they have little to do with the teachings of Christianity. They may co-incide a lot, but that doesnt mean they are based off them

Normality is really irrelevant. If there's a man with an IQ of 180 in a world of people with IQ's of 30...he is abnormal. It doesn't mean he is 'wrong' in whatever his beliefs are. Or, how about this analogy.

I like sugar on my cereal. The norm, however, is to put salt on the cereal. I am abnormal in that sense, but I'm not 'wrong' in my wanting to sugar up my breakfast.

I didnt get my point across very well here, the point was that there must be a reason for the majority of people to view someone as abnormal, and the reason is that most people find the idea of murder abhorrent.

To use your example, you being abnormal for having sugar on cereal, shows that most people dont view that as the "done thing"

Let's say there is a group of Africans who live primarily on their own. Their culture states that killing is okay, whether for pleasure or necessity. Under the assumption there is no absolute morality, how can anyone say "no, that's wrong"

That cultures practice of killing people for no reason, would just as acceptable as ours of not killing each other. We could offer no arguement to prove that it's wrong.

Instinct. Plain and simple, your gut reaction.I realise that is shakey. and again possibly (but hopefully not) unique to me, but the uniqueness of this culture, suggests that something has happened to them to encourage this odd behaviour, rather than to the rest of the world

But good points.

[Problem Sleuth]

Without god, you have a short, finite existence. There is no afterlife, no continuation. This is it. Your one chance to enjoy yourself before the lights go off and you disappear forever, to eventually be forgotten (quickly, more often than not) by an uncaring universe. This is it, seek your happiness now if there is no god.

This applies to humanity as a whole. We only have so much time here, a precious, fleeting moment. Even as a species, we will be here and gone in the blink of the eye. We might as well make it as pleasurable and as long of a run as possible. From this, springs morality. It's not objective, it's entirely subjective for the human race, but it's simple and it's something just about everyone can agree on, religious or not. We, as humans, should make it our goal to improve humanity's overall happiness and how long we stick around as much as possible. Just about everyone benefits from the laws in place, directly or indirectly, and the vast, vast majority of us can agree on both the laws and the premise of them.

Murder:

1.) Destablizes society, which is integral to maintaining both of our objectives as people.

2.) Emotional trauma to those who know the person, decreasing overall happiness.

3.) The chances are it'll decrease how long humanity will last, to a large or small extent.

4.) You take away someone's opportunity to enjoy their brief existence.


So on and so forth with various examples.

But I'd say on the issue of murder, there is a fairly universal view that it is unacceptable.

What murder is defined as varies from culture to culture.

[DimondLight]

I would. No morality, no conscience, no boundaries. Do whatever you want. Kill 6 million jews and send half your country to death camps in the arctic; it wont matter, because its not wrong. No God = no morality. It is the morality of whatever man decides is right, basically. If I say murder is moral, whose to stop me?

That's one of the most absurd things I've seen on here. You are really blaming non-theism for the Holocaust? Are you saying that all Atheists are going to go around killing 6 million people just because they don't believe in your "God"?

[Templar Hospitaller]

What are you suggesting? That without God we'd all just go around killing, raping and looting?

Are you saying that the only thing that stops you from murdering and raping is fear of punishment?

Yes.

[MaryPoppinCaps]

Yes.

So how do you explain atheists that don't go around raping and pillaging?

[Templar Hospitaller]

So how do you explain atheists that don't go around raping and pillaging?

fear of punishment.

[Nutsack]

fear of punishment.

I dont disagree with you. I think fear of punishment is within human nature, perhaps for other animals also.

[MaryPoppinCaps]

fear of punishment.

From God? Or just in general?

[gambit]

fear of punishment.

Then that'd be the same reason most religious folk dont go around killing, raping and pillaging.

[hellheaven1987]

The whole "without God, there would be no morals" theory is nonsense; the best example is ancient Chinese, who did not enforce morality and law using any God or Godness.

The whole point of "morality" is based on education, which ancient Chinese proves again how a nice brainwash of Confucianism could achieve.

[Shi Huangdi]

You are absolutely right, Andre Messana. Without God, everything loses its meaning and purpose.

[Playfishpaste]

Assume that there was no god that started off human history (which is what all of the physical evidence points towards), and you can see that we are actually just fine. Not much different from a world "with god". Whether or not god exists has nothing to do with human morals. Humans existed long before the christian concept of god was formulated and got along just fine in a civil manner, learning great things.

[Emperor Tom]

You are absolutely right, Andre Messana. Without God, everything loses its meaning and purpose.

Yes, and then it wouldn't really be hard to commit "crimes". Everything would be natural! Everthing would come easy. Luckily this is not the case...well atleast for me since I do believe!

[AdmiralSloop]

So all atheist are criminals? Or potential criminals?

[Orko]

Yes, and then it wouldn't really be hard to commit "crimes". Everything would be natural! Everthing would come easy. Luckily this is not the case...well atleast for me since I do believe!

qhy would it be hard? do you think that you andall of your religious loonies have a monopoly on conscience?