Can there be an objective morality?

Thomas from Presence

I know this one might be a aloof but in this age without God what holds us from killing ourselves. I know that a lot of people believe in God still but does the majoritytruly believe in a final judgement? Is there an objective idea of good and evil?

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

Something better or as time goes on Tom predicts dark ages moral less society.
Is social contract strong enough?

Sand

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

human relationships, humour, ambition, pride and exspensive accessories.

People mightnt believe in a godly final judgement anymore (least not until their deathbeds perhaps when you tend to get a lot more superstious - or maybe youre just hedging your bets) but they certainly belive in an everpresent judgement by their peers - hence moral behaviour as decided by the current views of society. Humans remain social animals afterall.

)

I know this one might be a aloof but in this age without God what holds us from killing ourselves.

Seeing as the exsistence of God ( or somesuch) is used to encourage people to die for pointless causes why exactly would the absence of God encourage you to die for a pointless cause ( suicide? ). Assuming we know god doesnt exsist why would you exchange a world where you can experience for nothingness ( which is pretty undefinable seeing as youre dead)? t least if you thought god did exsist youd be happy to die knowing you got heaven waiting for you.

Ajnag

Do No Harm.

azezil

I think of Religion as a necessary part of any society’s natural development. It sets out a set of guidelines to better understanding and social unity. We have evolved as a society thus no longer require "the fear of god" to know what’s right and wrong.

Something better or as time goes on Tom predicts dark ages moral less society.
Is social contract strong enough?

Some people would undoubtedly use the absence of an over-seer as an excuse to explore the riches of their new found freedom. This could cause social disfunction but in time we will find a healthy middle ground.

WHO OR WHAT FILLS THE GOD-SIZED GAP WE HAVE CREATED?

Ourselves, our own needs, desires, wants. Its far healthier to please yourself than to worry about the will of an unseen, unknown divine entity.

JustHalf

"We have evolved beyond God"... what egoistic crap.

Let's face it, we humans are bastards.

pro_gnostic_8

No, Azezil’s proposition (I think) was that society has evolved beyond the “need” for a belief in a God as the arbiter of right and wrong. This is a very interesting idea ........... one I had not considered before, and one which I think is probably correct. Does society at this stage of development require the interdict of a “Higher Power” to dissuade us from wrong-doing, or has humanity acquired the capacity of conscience from the shared experience of societal moral concepts?

Certainly, human beings in general now are distinguished by greater compassion and understanding from those of earlier ages. Of course, there will always be a percentage of people capable of wrongdoing of a more individual nature (robbery, assault, etc) but I believe that, all in all, western society is now in a far more agreeable state than at any previous point in history. God might not be dead yet, but, His rules and regulations are an anachronism.

azezil

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
No, Azezil’s proposition (I think) was that society has evolved beyond the “need” for a belief in a God as the arbiter of right and wrong

Precisely.

Look at the African states, a people with a relatively primitive social structure. Religion is sweeping across the continent like wildfire, local superstitions are being swept aside for the teachings of the church. I think we can agree for the most part that’s a good thing.

DadaKopf

It's the general consensus today that there's no objective morality. It's also general consensus that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. Since the Renaissance and Reformation, there has been, in the West, a steady 'disenchantment' of nature - as things have become more measurable, and therefore able to be given a quantitive truth value, superstition has been replaced with scientific 'certainty'. The room left for supersition of any variety has been dramatically reduced. God has been squeezed out.

However, as much as we now focus on the measurable things in life, morality continues to be a problem. There have been many attempts at objectifying morals, such as Utilitarianism or Marxism and even Darwinism, but after 2,000 years of high civilisation we haven't found a universally true moral code. This says a lot about the character of morality.

Ludwig Feuerbach said that God is the projection of Man's own aspirations, the distance we place ourselves from ourselves makes us strive for perfection. I think this is true, but many different people(s) have created very different aspirations as they come from very different times, places, cultures. It was once possible to have an 'objective' morality because people didn't move around much, people could live their lives without meeting a single person from a different culture. Nowadays, being faced with a multiplicity of cultures, religions and world views tells us that moralities are complex products of particular contexts. So, if we think back to Feuerbach, I suppose there are many gods because there are many contexts.

What's a context? Everything that exists in the social reality of a group of people in a particular space and time. This includes: individual interpretation; a public, intersubjective discourse which culminates in a public morality; the common stock of knowledge including culture and science; sedimented memory; the present social structure and power relations (including the control of knowledge). This reality leads to an understanding of morality as a highly complex interaction between these elements.

But that's not to say that each morality is untrue - in fact, each moral system is true for that context. But it's never 'objective'. The context grounds the truth of the morality which is, itself, constantly open to amendment and augmentation as the social reality moves along, telling its own story. The difference between us and a tribe in the Amazon is that the tribe is isolated, giving them the idea that there is nothing else outside their world view. We're open to a multiplicity of world views and this has caused us a lot of trouble. I wouldn't like to say, though, that the Amazonian tribe has it easy.

A morality isn't simply a way for us to live together in harmony. It's a totalising system through which we apprehend the world meaningfully. It's not helpful to view moralities just as benign ways that were invented, or bestowed upon us, to make us better people and live together in peace and harmony. Moralities are products of our social reality which are more often than not used as a means of control - of our control over nature and other people's control over us through power-knowledge. As contingencies change, so too do moral codes. But they change for a reason. First, they change because our knowledge of the world is constantly changing but more importantly, moralities change because of calls for liberation as much as political domination.

pro_gnostic_8

Indeed, morality is contextual to specific cultures/societies. This being the case, then you must agree that the common morality of a more advanced society is more proper (more moral?) than that of a society on a lower level of development.

This is where the "Azezil Proposition" is of great relevance. Religion and "God" are influences for good in primitive societes which have not yet achieved a common cultural understanding of "right".

However, our society (western democratic) has perhaps evolved sufficiently so that we don't require a God anymore to make us desist from wrong-doing through fear of an "after-life" punishment.

pro_gnostic_8

The more I consider the "Azezil Proposition" the more I can see its inherent truth.

It also raises another question.......... Hasn't our society evolved sufficiently to, in fact, dispose of God altogether? Our societal morality has developed adequately to supersede Gods morality..........aspects of which are now widely accepted as downright AMORAL.....e.g. the imposition of our own religious beliefs through force on more backward cultures, the persecution of homosexuals, the burning of witches etc.
Maybe the God our parents knew is not a relevant moral authority for our time.

JustHalf

I believe my head is about to explode.

darthmise

I'm with ye on this one Justhalf.

I can't believe that you (and i'm talking mainly to Azezil and pro-gnostic-8) youo can stop and think; "my my, havne't we as a species evolved nicely.

seamus

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
This being the case, then you must agree that the common morality of a more advanced society is more proper (more moral?) than that of a society on a lower level of development.

No, I don't agree. Who is to say which society is more advanced? Surely not us, we live in a society, thereby removing any objectivity. And advanced in which way? Technologically advanced, hey that's simple, but morally advanced, or spiritually advanced? By spiritual generally I mean a person's own feelings about them and their surroundings and how they fit in, and life in general.

If I was going to say who are the more advanced society, morally or spiritually, I would look back at the Native Americans. Before the Europeans came and took their lands, and slaughtered them, they lived in peace and harmony with the land and with eachother. I would consider them far more advanced then us with our self-centeredness and constant need to make ourselves more powerful and egotistical.

Advanced society? Pfft. I don't see much difference between us and the people of medievel times. We just know more, and live in a different environment, that's all.

Venom

Look at the African states, a people with a relatively primitive social structure. Religion is sweeping across the continent like wildfire, local superstitions are being swept aside for the teachings of the church. I think we can agree for the most part that’s a good thing.

What ever else it is its in no way a good thing.None of these "primitive" peoples have caused as much widespread death,torture and misery as the so called holy church.This isint even taking into account the amount of modern day lives damaged and destroyed by pervert priests.

Sure they can now help fill the coffers of the Vatican even more.They can now consider there women second class people in the eyes of God and the church.

The truly sad thing is they lasted so long as godless heathens just to be caught at a time where most civilised countries are getting to the point where they can see the church for what it really is.


And as for the original question,the reasion most people dont kill left, right and center is because were a civilised society for most parts and fear going to jail for a long time for the other parts.

DadaKopf

Good post, seamus, but you should be more careful in what you say. First you say that it's not possible for anyone to objectively judge the goodness of one society over the other and then you say that the native Americans' society was the most peaceful and healthy.

My point is that it's not helpful for people to become nostalgic for the past like that because it sets up a problematic that brings people nowhere in addressing current problems, not least because 1) often times nostalgia is pure imagination and 2) it subverts any historical accuracy and objectivity that is possible when attempting to establish historical, ethical patterns.

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

However, our society (western democratic) has perhaps evolved sufficiently so that we don't require a God anymore to make us desist from wrong-doing through fear of an "after-life" punishment.

I think you should be careful about applying evolutionary ideas to society. We've changed , certainly, but it's arguable whether it's for the better. As Seamus points out, the Native Americans lived more in harmony with nature. On the other hand, we've got longer life expectency, we're more tolerant in some ways, but our lifestyles (and by 'our' I those of us living in the more wealthy countries) do a lot of damage to the natural environment when you add them all up. For example, if China were to develop along the same path as the USA has and attain similar levels of resource consumption and pollution, the Earth's ecology would be change drastically for the worse far faster than is projected at the moment.

As for God and modern society, could you not argue that wealthy Western culture has got rid of the old fellow not because we're so smart and well-adjusted but because our lives have become so amoral. Not immoral - I'm not condemning anybody's lifestyle here - but amoral: our moral processes are put under severe stress by modern society. When humans evolved, they lived in far smaller communities with far more predictable events and behaviour. Even when the main religions were developing, societies were more predictable, local and stable. Now we encounter thousands of strangers every day in some way, and our actions -what we buy, what waste we produce, for example - can have some ramifications for - at least - thousands more, the vast majority of whom we'll never meet. 'Globalised' society presents us with very strong and contradictory messages of powerlessness and distant responsibility, which make it very tough to hold on to moral prescriptions like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So maybe most people have just given up, or have formed their own secular moralities to deal with all this.

prophet88

I'm in a web caf at the moment so do not have time to read everybody's post so if this has been mentioned already then i apologise.

Too many people are making a very big mistake these days.

Everyone who wants to believe in God, cannot 'believe' in him. A certain (Unknown) percentage of the population 'try' to believe. They fall into the dreaded phase of Try too hard and you get the opposite intent.

In conclusion, it is much easier to have faith than to believe. When you have faith you will see that it is no longer fact that rules but something else that need not be described. Any queries you have will then be shifted to the side and a sense of ease will take their place.

Fact.

Prophet88

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose



As for God and modern society, could you not argue that wealthy Western culture has got rid of the old fellow not because we're so smart and well-adjusted but because our lives have become so amoral.

No moose, I honestly believe western society has not become amoral but if anything more moral. The Native American example referred to above illustrates my point that society's morality has evolved beyond God morality. I did say in a previous post, QUOTE: " Our societal morality has developed adequately to supersede Gods morality..........aspects of which are now widely accepted as downright AMORAL.....e.g. the imposition of our own religious beliefs through force on more backward cultures".

Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism -- (the animals of the field are for man's use and benefit,etc,etc) whereas the morality of society condemns such cruel practices. My change of heart in this instance is a mirror of the evolving morality of society while the morality of God has stayed moribund.

seamus

Yeah Dada, I probably should have said 'IMO'. While I personally think that about the native Americans, my opinion is tainted for many reasons, mainly; I already live in a society, thereby creating a 'grass is always greener' effect, and, I have never experienced the native american lifestyle except through it's romanticising by other people. Objectivity: Out the door.

Which can be applied to anyone's argument. If people say we are more advanced, without even experiencing the other society, the argument is invalid. Which I think is close to what Dadakopf was saying

pro_gnostic_8, I tend to believe that God doesn't play a massive part in morality (at least not any more). Morality evolves and changes, just like society does. For example, it seems now that we are far more relaxed on certain areas, then say, our grandparents were. But if we went back to the 18th century, and they saw the way our grandparents lived, they'd be outraged.

But which is righter? Are we more amoral than our grandparents? Or are we more correct? Well, neither. The evolution of society encompasses (and is caused by) many things. The most significant shifts in mass mentality in the last 100 years have come about mainly due to technological advances. And it's not just morality that's changed, it's everything. Simply, we know more now, so we can happily dismiss some of the old ideals. Others must be kept. For example, murder is wrong. Why? Well, because essentially, you are ending a person's life. However, if we knew for certain that there was just an afterlife, no heaven or hell, murder wouldn't be taken half as serious, even 'murder with consent' would probably be completely legal.

So, basically what I am saying is, we cannot say that we are well advanced morally. Morality only fills in the gaps where there's an uncertainty as to the exact outcome of an action.

Primitive tribes gobble up Christianity, because it helps fill the gaps in their knowledge, it provides answers for your questions, once you have faith. Christianity is losing hold on western society for exactly the opposite reason - we know so many facts now that can rubbish their teachings. It's beliefs on contraception illustrate exactly my idea.

Buddhism is growing at a phenomenal rate - why because it fills gaps in our knowledge, and has less teachings based on 'incorrect facts'.

I don't know what I was trying to say there, but basically I think that we're not losing God, or evolving away from that belief, rather we're evolving the idea of God to suit our own needs.....

darthmise

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8



Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism -- (the animals of the field are for man's use and benefit,etc,etc) whereas the morality of society condemns such cruel practices. My change of heart in this instance is a mirror of the evolving morality of society while the morality of God has stayed moribund.

Thats not an example of a western society evolving!!
Thats a sign of getting older and learning right from wrong.

When you say society, give an example using society, not an individual.

Like western society exploiting third world eastern society work forces.
Like western society actually trying to make a profit from ridding Africa of AIDS.
Like western Society bombing third world countries in the name of the "war against terror", when we should be helping them.
We constantly seek to create new methods of mass destruction.
We chase the almighty dollar like a carrot on a string.
We become more and more greedy with every passing generation.

If a society is going to evolve beyond a god, it has to evolve into a society where each member of that soceity belives themselves to be their own god. Believes that they owe themselves a duty to do right by others.
Thats a spiritual journey and spiritual evolution is very much an eastern strength... Shintoism, buddism, hinduism.

I honestly belive the west has become so drawn into a "Rat-Race" existance that we go through most of our lives with our heads down and don't take the time to smell the flowers.


Study the human race from a third person perspective. We are not a species to be proud of. We think ourselves superior to every other creature on this planet. We bleed this planet dry for our own gains. We are nothing more than a parasite.

The esteem in which you hold the human race frightens me.

JustHalf

Originally posted by seamus
Christianity is losing hold on western society for exactly the opposite reason - we know so many facts now that can rubbish their teachings. It's beliefs on contraception illustrate exactly my idea.

I think you're confusing "Catholocism" and "Christianity". There's nothing in the bible that says you can't use condoms.

seamus

Originally posted by JustHalf
I think you're confusing "Catholocism" and "Christianity". There's nothing in the bible that says you can't use condoms.

In the Old Testament, there's a story (my memory is vague) about a couple who would have sex, and the man would withdraw, ejaculating on the ground. They were then 'struck down' by God. The reasing being that it was believed (until the 19th century) that the man carried the child, simply placing it into the women, therefore by masturbating or doing anything other than unbarriered, penetrative sex, you were committing murder.

But apologies, yes, in the context I was mainly referring to Catholicism

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

Can I give an example of a personal nature? about 10 years ago I was into hare coursing in a big way...... in a very big way. I used to throw live rabbits to my greyhounds to "blood" them. I now know that this was morally wrong and reprehensible behaviour. However, Gods morality see's nothing wrong with this barbarism ....

You still seem to be comparing moralities in terms of their quality, which is a circular argument since each moral framework will always view itself as the best. If I were so inclined, I could argue along the lines of your coursing example that while a certain 'modern' morality sees nothing right about the 'barbarism' of hare coursing, it sees nothing wrong about abortion, and, worse than that, doesn't even acknowledge there to be a contradiction.

But this line of argument will never bring you closer to answering the question in this thread. Religion seems to provide an objective basis for morality since it gives us - ideally - a constant and unchanging reference point against which to judge everything else. For many, that reference point is no loner adequate. So a lot of us essentially make it up as we go along.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose


You still seem to be comparing moralities in terms of their quality, which is a circular argument since each moral framework will always view itself as the best

I should have hoped I wasn't!. There is only the one morality under discussion......... western democratic society's morality, and if you accept the Azezil Proposition (which I do) that western society has now evolved sufficiently that we do not need to believe in Gods morality to lead a moral existence then you have to accept by extrapolation that society's morality has superseded Gods morality.

Incidetally moose, I think your last sentence "so a lot of us make it (morality) as we go along" neatly sums up the evolving nature of morality in western society.

azezil

Originally posted by Venom
What ever else it is its in no way a good thing.None of these "primitive" peoples have caused as much widespread death,torture and misery as the so called holy church.This isint even taking into account the amount of modern day lives damaged and destroyed by pervert priests.

The church was founded by primitive people.. Primitive people are violent, its easy for us to look back now with our evolved sense of morality and shake our heads and so forth, but that was done by human beings, humans have the capacity for acts of great love and compassion as well as horrible violence but my point is that the teachings of the church, its ideals and beliefs are innately good and can provide a clear set of guidelines for an underdeveloped culture.



p.s. i am not pro_gnostic_8

ykt0di9url7bc3

Our Fathers were models for God, The 10 commandments are a blueprint for an ideal utopia, great for a primitive culture but when a society developes far enough then the society starts filling in the blanks for God....If you steal, you now do not fear the wrath of God but you fear the police....Its not St. Peter that judges you but the courts....In our western society now, we dont wait till the poor beggar dies but take it upon ourselves to act now...Religion becomes a hobby/social gathering/greatly appeals to the elderly and an after-thought of philosophy...[IMO]

I still try to keep my religion and still keep my intrest in cosmology/biology and other sciences...where i believe what i learn and research but keep my faith for God....

Is there civilisation without religion or someone to hold responsible when some thing out of our hands goes wrong?

<islander> hey the volcano is about to blow! how can this happen?
<shaman> ah..em...God did it!
<islander> i thought chuck did it
<shaman> no its God and you pissed him off!!!
<islander> i better keep him happy!

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
There is only the one morality under discussion......... western democratic society's morality, and if you accept the Azezil Proposition (which I do) that western society has now evolved sufficiently that we do not need to believe in Gods morality to lead a moral existence then you have to accept by extrapolation that society's morality has superseded Gods morality.

Given that the vast, vast percentage of western civilisation are actually religious people, I fail to see how you can claim that our societal morality supersedes "God's" morality, when that societal morality is essentially a mix of all of our various religious moralities.

Remove the religion, and you remove the underlying backbone which actually supports our societal morality. Personally, I dont believe the two are seperable at a societal level. Sure, at an individual level its no problem, but not for a whole society.

Look at things like religious and political polls that are typically carried out in boards. We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.

For us to believe that we, individually, have grown beyond religious morality is simple, and quite possibly true in most cases.

For us to believe that mainstream society has followed in our footsteps is ridiculous. Its about as credible as saying that society has evolved beyond violence because we, as a group of non-representative individuals, see no need in violence.

jc

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by SearrarD

Is there civilisation without religion or someone to hold responsible when some thing out of our hands goes wrong?

<islander> hey the volcano is about to blow! how can this happen?
<shaman> ah..em...God did it!
<islander> i thought chuck did it
<shaman> no its God and you pissed him off!!!
<islander> i better keep him happy!

I guess in times of catastrophe or impending disaster, it is ingrained in the human psyche after 2000 years of implanted religious teaching for a lot of people to turn to “God”.

Still, I suspect that if it was certain to happen that an asteroid was to hit tomorrow with extinction of the human race guaranteed, a surprisingly large number of people would tonight simply get drunk, have a few spliffs and get their their rocks off one last time.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey


Given that the vast, vast percentage of western civilisation are actually religious people,

With respect, I have to totally and absolutely disagree with this assessment. Anecdotal evidence from a wide circle of acquaintances of varying age-groups and social backgrounds convinces me that, in fact, the majority of people are now outside any religious commitment. Agnostic at the least and quite possibly atheistic. And of the remainder that do still practice religion, many do so just out of convention and maybe because of peer pressure to raise their kids in a “God-fearing” home environment.
IMO, Western European is the most un-religious society (exception of North Korea etc.) on the planet today.Various reports and studies have proved beyond doubt that Mass attendance’s are falling steadily in this country. Other European countries are experiencing similar downturns in religious observation.

I do believe that religion does serve a purpose in educating primitive peoples in good, but in Western society with it’s own evolved morality “Gods” morality is an anachronism.


Quote
___________________________________________________
Look at things like religious and political polls that are typically carried out in boards. We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.
___________________________________________________

BTW,Isn’t it a bit elitist to claim that Boards.ie contributors are the vanguard of progressive thinking in this country. My position is that these polls you refer to on Boards approximate to the actual views of the public in general in this matter.

shotamoose

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
BTW,Isn’t it a bit elitist to claim that Boards.ie contributors are the vanguard of progressive thinking in this country.

He didn't say anything of the sort. You're the one who's saying that secular morality is 'progressing beyond' religious morality.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by shotamoose


He didn't say anything of the sort.

I know he didn't say it ...... I said it!
And what I said is the direct and logical corollary or inference of what he did say which was
Quote:
__________________________________________________
We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.
__________________________________________________

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

I know he didn't say it ...... I said it!
And what I said is the direct and logical corollary or inference of what he did say which was
Quote:
__________________________________________________
We are highly unrepresentative of society. We come from the niche groups, not the mainstream.
__________________________________________________

Actually, there is nothing in what I posted to imply that niche groups are the vanguard of society. Anyone who believes that the various belief groups (and their relative popularity) on boards are indicative of society as a whole is kidding themselves. As I said - compare results of polls here with equivalent polls from papers. We do not follow the same political or religious breakdowns as the nation does when taken as a whole. Ergo, we are not representative. As a result, it would be wrong to simply take our beliefs and believe that they would apply to society as a whole.

Also, I would point out that Western Civilisation is nowhere near the same thing as "western European" as you seem to have construed. America, for example, is generally considered the bastion of western civilisation. It definitely isnt in Western Europe. It is, however, still a highly religious country. For example, I challenge you to name one American president who was a self-acclaimed agnostic or atheist. Indeed, I dont think a self-professed non-christian has ever been president. Why? Because religious affiliation runs so strongly in America that it is deemed nigh on impossible to get elected without the support of the major Christian religious factions.

Also, while I would agree, in principle, that the youth of today has less time for, or belief in, structured religion (and possibly in the concept of a deity or deities), I would also point out that our society has been formed by those who came before us, not by our generation.

As such, we need to look on our society in terms of the older generation as well. Given that mass attendance, and (dare I say it) the general belief in God is decliing, I think it is fair to say that they were more religious, and in general had more belief than our generation.

As we go back a few generations, we find a general increase in belief and religion in western society. Most people also would say that our society is degenerating - through whatever actions. Violence is on the rise, as is organised crime, drug abuse, etc. etc. etc. While I am not a holy Joe who will claim that one is a result of the other, I can say that you will find a strong relationship between them.

In short, I dont believe that there is any signs that society has improved as a result of its declination of belief. There are several indicators, however, which hint that it may well have disimproved as belief has waned. Perhaps it would have disimproved regardless of belief levels, but this is very hard to show.

Sure, you can pick a small enclave or community and show how they can survive well without God in their lives. But you can also show that a highly religious group can also do the same. The trick is to look, not at the community level, but at the societal level.

At this level, I can see no indication that society is, or would be, better (or as well) off without god. An individual may be, but western society as a whole is still highly dependant on god.

I believe that we are progressing towards a state where this may some day be no longer true, but we're a long way away from that.

jc

JustHalf

Sorry, but how can we have an objective morality without something outside of us?

We can have no objective morality without God... everything else is subjective morality.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by JustHalf
We can have no objective morality without God... everything else is subjective morality.

Explain.

Originally posted by bonkey
Also, while I would agree, in principle, that the youth of today has less time for, or belief in, structured religion (and possibly in the concept of a deity or deities), I would also point out that our society has been formed by those who came before us, not by our generation.

That's an excellent point. Moralities, whatever they are, are extremely complex things and they don't actually change very quickly. In any one moral system, some aspects are capable of changing in decades, others take centuries. Moralities are complex organisms that are deeply historically sedimented and respond not so much to people's fleeting attitudes in the here and now but to profound historical events, memory, deep-set political and cultural institutions, the politico-economic structure of society and technology. Although we are most definitely shaping morality for the future, we are living in the past - memories of past events, political institutions as they have developed over time, scientific discoveries etc.

And this leads me on to something else I've noticed in this thread. We all seem to be assuming the Western context and therefore we're automatically assuming Western moral codes as the baseline for argument.As historically rooted codes, I think it's generally accepted that we're to understand our current moral phase as postmodernism. This phase is defined by two things above all: diversity and pragmatism. I'll take each in turn.

The diversity which characterises our world today has emerged as a result of certain stages in Western development:

• The Renaissance
• The Reformation
• The Enlightenment and subsequent industrialisation
• free market capitalism

The whole process has culminated in a situation in which we're communicating faster, easier and in greater volumes, we're travelling more, encountering other world views and we're constantly bomboarded with telecommunications from all over the world. This is now the social reality of the global capitalist system.

This is where pragmatism comes in. This diversity has placed immense strain on comprehensive ethical doctrines and social values and norms to the point where pragmatism is believed to be the only tenable way of dealing with things amidst a multimplicity of deeply ingrained moral world views and value systems. But this doesn't amount to a morality, it's amorality.

But does this mean we've dispensed with God?

No. The belief today is that there are no moral 'truths' in any objective sense. Does this imply that morality is only a matter of interpretation? It probably is largely that, but as a historical process all moralities are embedded in the process of history, in the real world, no matter how metaphysically abstract it seems. All moralities are a product of their conditions but I don't think this takes away from their lasting value at all. It's just the acceptance that, like any scientific 'proof', moralities are incomplete things, always open to refutation or transcendence.

In any case, this realisation tells us that all historical narratives are equal in status. The role of God, no matter how much Western 'progress' has squeezed Him further out of the picture (the nature of the question being unanswerable anyway) will mean the problem of God and objective morality will keep resurfacing ad infinitum. We're simply in no position to step outside of our world to view anything objectively to any deadly accurate degree and never will be.

As Bonkey correctly pointed out, God and religion continues to be an important source of meaning and stability to millions in America, and that's just the Christians. As I said earlier, there's little mention in this thread of the billions of religious people worldwide and the huge array of different denominations. And if we're to conclude that 'modernity', or the conditions of industrialisation and global capitalism - and everything that goes with it - is spelling an end for the Big Man, then why is America, the most 'Western' of all Western societies not willing to drop mentions of God in their constitution? And for that matter, what about all the countries who have not 'modernised' in our sense but could be considered equally 'civilized'? Wre we to forget about them, too?

We're reached this point in history but it's not any decisive point, destined by history, even if it looks that way when you squint your eyes and turn your head at 83° and hop on one leg. It doesn't help that the capitalist system is making more places alike than ever before but that doesn't equal having reached a profound location in space and time where we no longer require God. Certainly, God has receded in scope over the centuries, mostly due to the advance of scientific reasoning, but God exists in a realm that resists that kind of reasoning and therefore will never be dispensed with and I believe the evidence supports this conclusion.

JustHalf

DadaKopf, think about it this way...

How can human beings objectively examine their morality? We'd be kidding ourselves to say it is possible, because we are coloured by our own views on morality. We already have certain preconceptions over what is right and what is wrong, and these prejudice us against other moral outlooks (because hey, we're right and they're wrong, isn't that correct?)

Only with God can there be an objective morality. In addition, that God must be an absolute God of absolute truth. God's morality is objective morality because what a God of absolute truth says is absolutely true.

Whether or not you believe in God doesn't come into it. Without a fixed reference point (like that kind of God) our morality cannot be seen objectively, only subjectively. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the way it is.

CodeMonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
DadaKopf, think about it this way...

How can human beings objectively examine their morality? We'd be kidding ourselves to say it is possible, because we are coloured by our own views on morality. We already have certain preconceptions over what is right and what is wrong, and these prejudice us against other moral outlooks (because hey, we're right and they're wrong, isn't that correct?)

Sure it's possible to examine our morality objectively once we realise that there is really no such thing as right and wrong. They are just human concepts and like you said later, it's all subjectively and depends what kind of society you grew up in and which philosophy you choose to subscribe to. It's only impossible if you think your moral codes are right and everyone else's are wrong.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey



Also, I would point out that Western Civilisation is nowhere near the same thing as "western European" as you seem to have construed. America, for example, is generally considered the bastion of western civilisation. It definitely isnt in Western Europe. It is, however, still a highly religious country. For example, I challenge you to name one American president who was a self-acclaimed agnostic or atheist.

Bonkey, I had not been America-specific in this thread because I have had no direct encounter with the American experience. But, I need some convincing that America is the epicentre of Western Civilisation (but that’s a debate for another day)
In swathes of middle America and in the fundamentalist South, religion perhaps does have an influence but to say that “the vast, vast percentage” of the American are “religious people” is, I think, an unsustainable exaggeration. And that’s before you factor in the naturally more liberal-inclined populations of the major cities.
Absolutely, I cannot name one American president who was a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist. Neither can I name a Russian president of the Soviet era who was a self-proclaimed Christian. “Religious affiliation” -- your phrase -- is the key phrase here. For this reason, neither can I name a Jewish or an Islamic president of the U.S. But to infer from this that the vast percentage of Americans are religious is a deduction too extreme. Personally, being born a Catholic makes me more sympathetic to the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland rather the Unionist tradition even though I have no association with the Catholic Church anymore. “Religious” affiliation again. Incidentally most of American presidents of the last 50 years IMHO were men of moral dereliction (Kennedy, Nixon etc. ) Outward religion in an individual or in a society does not necessarily indicate moral virtue.

QUOTE:
__________________________________________________________________
As such, we need to look on our society in terms of the older generation as well. Given that mass attendance, and(dare I say it) the general belief in God is decliing, I think it is fair to say that they were more religious, and in general had more belief than our generation.
__________________________________________________________________
I’m genuinely confused by this -- this is the view that I have been posting............ that belief in a god morality has diminished with the consequent rise to ascendance of societal morality.


QUOTE:
__________________________________________________________________
Most people also would say that our society is degenerating -through whatever actions. Violence is on the rise, as is organised crime, drug abuse etc. etc. etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Where is your evidence for this? Believe it or not, London (for example) is a far less violent place than was London of the 1800’s. Far less murders, assault, rape etc., -- and there is ample statistical evidence to support my statement. Organised crime is not on the increase (vis-à-vis 1920’s America.). Drug abuse? -- it depends on which drug you specify. Crack cocaine or ecstasy use is on the increase obviously because there are no figures of an earlier age to compare to..............these drugs weren’t around a generation ago. On the other hand, gin addiction devastated 18th century England to an extent unimaginable today.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by JustHalf
Only with God can there be an objective morality. In addition, that God must be an absolute God of absolute truth. God's morality is objective morality because what a God of absolute truth says is absolutely true.

Whether or not you believe in God doesn't come into it. Without a fixed reference point (like that kind of God) our morality cannot be seen objectively, only subjectively. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the way it is.

The first paragraph is a fair thing to say. However, it's fair enough to also say that God's jurisdiction over Man has diminished in size and so many of the 'truths' have been found to be incorrect (or improper). I think this process has forced God further and further into metaphysical abstraction the more science seems to be the best tool we have to examine the world objectively. If God's morality is objective morality, over and above Man's corporeal existence, then it cannot be objectively grounded in anything] as God is a fundamentally groundless (and unproveable) concept. It's the same case with numbers; the more abstract mathematics becomes, the more groundless it becomes. All concepts must be firmly grounded for them to have any truth value. And this in an important point for morality - I don't think it's possible to speak of pure objectivity (even if God makes it appear to be possible), we're talking about the value of a truth.

Originally posted by CodeMonkey
Sure it's possible to examine our morality objectively once we realise that there is really no such thing as right and wrong. They are just human concepts and like you said later, it's all subjectively and depends what kind of society you grew up in and which philosophy you choose to subscribe to. It's only impossible if you think your moral codes are right and everyone else's are wrong.

It's possible to examine the structures underlying a morality with a higher degree of accuracy than it is to examine values, which are intersubjective. There is no objective right and wrong, but those terms still very much apply to everyone's lives. Morality has an intersubjective element and a public element (society and environment) which is a structural element (power systems, modes of production/reproduction, dominant ideologies/philosophies and history). We can examine the intersubjective element but it will always be subject to error because it's founded on qualitative elements, but what you can examine are the structures and how people behave within them. So, any morality is formed by human values as formed by context and collective interpretation of that historical context.

All contexts become deeply embedded in societies and therefore become so constant (representing a continuous narrative) as to resemble objectivity. This was OK for a long time but now contexts are radically shifting. People don't choose philosophies (but let's call them moral world views), they live them.

Sure it's possible to examine our morality objectively once we realise that there is really no such thing as right and wrong.

This amounts to amorality. I'm not saying that at all. There is such a thing as right and wrong, we've just got to adjust our conception of where those rules come from and what binds us to them. Thsi is the biggest problem we're facing today. It's simply not enough to say that there's no right and wrong and it's all down to individual interpretation - that's an existentialist talking. It's much more complicated than that.

JustHalf

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The first paragraph is a fair thing to say. However, it's fair enough to also say that God's jurisdiction over Man has diminished in size and so many of the 'truths' have been found to be incorrect (or improper).

Give me one incorrect truth that God has given. The "improper" notion is really quite laughably arrogant, given the definition of God I've given (and that we're supposed to both take as a given, but you seem to have taken what I've said as being "what DadaKopf understands about the Christian God").

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I think this process has forced God further and further into metaphysical abstraction the more science seems to be the best tool we have to examine the world objectively.

I doubt morality can be examined scientifically. It's also odd to assume that the universe itself can be examined objectively, as we are measuring the universe by itself.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If God's morality is objective morality, over and above Man's corporeal existence, then it cannot be objectively grounded in anything as God is a fundamentally groundless (and unproveable) concept.

Your statement only holds true if you assume that God's existence is unproven... and yet my argument was that if, and only if, God exists can there be objective morality. If you want to argue with me, show that you can have objective morality without God -- it's the only way of defeating my argument (by means of defeating my argument).

And I think God's existence can be safely grounded in God, given the previous definition for a God that is required for objective morality.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's the same case with numbers; the more abstract mathematics becomes, the more groundless it becomes. All concepts must be firmly grounded for them to have any truth value. And this in an important point for morality - I don't think it's possible to speak of pure objectivity (even if God makes it appear to be possible), we're talking about the value of a truth.

I don't understand what you mean by a value of a truth. Where I come from (a logical background) a truth value is true or false.

Otherwise you get "what this truth means to me" stuff which is nonsense in the current debate.

pro_gnostic_8

Dada, may I query a couple of points you made in your recent post..........not for the purpose of debate, but because I honestly don't understand and would appreciate clarification.

QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________________
Certainly, God has receded in scope over the centuries, mostly due to the advance of scientific reasoning, but God exists in a realm that resists that kind of reasoning
______________________________________________________________________
Is this a temporal realm or spiritual realm your are referring to? If temporal, then the occupants of the realm are obviously anti-reasoning and anti-logic, and therefore can be dismissed. If spiritual..... then how do YOU actually know this is the case?


QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________________
I think it's generally accepted that we're to understand our current moral phase as postmodernism. This phase is defined by two things above all: diversity and pragmatism.
This is where pragmatism comes in. This diversity has placed immense strain on comprehensive ethical doctrines and social values and norms to the point where pragmatism is believed to be the only tenable way of dealing with things amidst a multimplicity of deeply ingrained moral world views and value systems. But this doesn't amount to a morality, it's amorality.
______________________________________________________________________
Pragmatism is a philosophy that evaluates conditions by their practical consequences and bearing on human interests. How could this be construed as amorality if human interests are the defining objective?


QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________________
In any one moral system, some aspects are capable of changing in decades, others take centuries.
_______________________________________________________________________
But they do change, right? They evolve? Now as you seem to accept this, would you say that morality in a given society changes over time for better or worse? If morality is an evolutionary process then it "should" by nature become a better morality.

JustHalf

Evolution has a lot of dead ends.

Thomas from Presence

This baby is warbling off the point a little by times. This post was not intented to be anti religous it is my humble opinion that religion is a cyclical event that starts as a cult, expands for whatever reason (conquest, persuasive monetary benefits, a ray of hope to the down trodden etc.), goes through a dominant fundementalist phase (European Christianity from Nicea to the Crusades to the Inquisition and Middle Eastern Islam in some countries today [they're 700 years behind the Christians]).

Eventually there is a reactionary movement within the religion (reformation) andthen science or another belief takes over (romans turning christian, Greeks choosing reason and philosophy? Celts to christians) and the religion dies to become a mythology.

In my humble opinion our society is witnessing the final stage of religious death like it or not only for christianity to be replaced by weak esoteric beliefs (equally weak in that they're as provable as the Gods they replace) and science (nice and tangible but not an answerer of all questions).

What will keep us on the straight and narrow when the threat of eternal damnation is put up against our head?

If this is too controversial a question (the relevance of the question is a debate in itself)

Can there be an objective morality other than a god?

I tend to agree with dadakopf's negative stance but if anyone has a fail safe answer then put it up and YOU could have the honour of solving what is inherently the biggest ethical problem ever!

Thomas from Presence

Scratch that actually, how about:

Can anyone offer an alternative source to God for an Objective morality?

Thats the babe I want to see nailed

pro_gnostic_8

I'm sorry, but I am so frustrated by this above post.

You authored this thread , made no further contribution during its development until the very tail-end when you condemned other posts as being off-topic, and then repeated the original question you posed back at the start of the month. I mean, FFS...........

I would, however, like to thank all others who did make a positive contribution to the debate........... I found it very stimulating anyway.

Thomas from Presence

Condemmed is a very harsh word my friend! I don't care if someone wants to debate an aspect of a topic I posted till it s up being a debate about can elephants fly if the correct jet engine were attached. Apologies if it read that way to those that posted previously.

Due to an absence on my part since I initiated the thread I was unable to contribute anything original to some of the points made by yourself, dadakopf et al.

Personally I don't believe there to be an alternative to God for that good ou objective morality either and a lot of people would agree with that but it seemed that the debate was angling towards this assertion as an a priori fact/truth.

Now I'm asking in genuine ignorance if anyone knows of an alternative to the existence of God giving rise to an ideal good or evil. perhaps from a non western position.

The judaeo-christian tempered world we live in has removed a lot of objectivity from our metaphysics.

We see time as linear because we measure it from the a point of creation or from the birth of Christ for instance when the Greeks saw it as cyclical.
A culture/belief system that would view time as a continous (reincantation, infinite cycles of life and rebirth) would think us strange for seeing it as a straight line with a beginning and a penultimate end (which we do subconsciously or conciously church goer or dirty heathen !). Maybe because we still have these ideas floating around we can't answer the question?

Similarly culture/belief system might exist that logically views good in evil as ideals measured against something else. The basis of ultilitarianism (ie if its not painful then go for it babe!) may be one alternative or the similarly godless social contract of Rouessau (I won't rob you if you don't rob me !) might do the trick too, I don't know personally!

As I say I don't know if they fulfil the criteria for objective morality or if there are other ideas, cultures etc that do so I'm really asking is there anyone thinks or knows there is? Or am I asking a stupid question confusing my ethical systems with metha-ethics? As I say I'm only an ignorant beginner looking out for the alternatives!