Is morality possible without God

[Geanna]

It was a mistake on his part Dya - no biggie.

Fine... Spoil my fun...

It's what I do

[Hurdegaryp]

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable.

1.Are you aware that you have been comparing non-human animals with human animals RIGHT THERE IN YOUR POST?
2.Also, some proof of animals being "built" for some "purpose". What was the purpose of an Anomalocaris?

That is a fascinating post, but you should have quoted the whole thing. First he claims that all other animals on this world are a result of the schemes of a creator God to give us, the creator God's greatest work, things to exploit, but after that he merrily states that the creator God he worships was created by him. Does that make him the creator God of his creator God?

[Dyakovo]

Fine... Spoil my fun...

It's what I do

I'd have thought a Sex Cow would have some other purpose...

[Geanna]

It's what I do

I'd have thought a Sex Cow would have some other purpose...

Well, I have been quietly plotting to form the first ever Lesbocracy.

[Lordieth]

It's so obvious that good and evil are relative, isn't it?

No doubt the seal thinks bringing food to it's pup is unquestionably good, the highest of moral duty. And probably the penguin disagrees.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo#t=1m30s

Please explain.

[Hurdegaryp]

Morality? Well, certainly no transcendence beyond the concept of the collective good. However de-facto without any transcendent nature then ones own existence would be the alpha and omega so to speak which would make it hard to argue against self-serving attitudes however vile.

The weaker the cause, the weaker the effect.

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

[Sociobiology]

Morality? Well, certainly no transcendence beyond the concept of the collective good. However de-facto without any transcendent nature then ones own existence would be the alpha and omega so to speak which would make it hard to argue against self-serving attitudes however vile.

The weaker the cause, the weaker the effect.

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

No
We have social instincts because it benefits our genes, it is based on kin selection and reciprocal altruism, group and species selection is not a real things.

[Esternial]

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

No
We have social instincts because it benefits our genes, it is based on kin selection and reciprocal altruism, group and species selection is not a real things.

It benefits our survival, and the survival of our genes, increasing the chance they will be passed on, which was more or less what Hurde was talking about.

[Risottia]

Morality? Well, certainly no transcendence beyond the concept of the collective good. However de-facto without any transcendent nature then ones own existence would be the alpha and omega so to speak which would make it hard to argue against self-serving attitudes however vile.

The weaker the cause, the weaker the effect.

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

By the way, similar behaviour has been observed in other primates.

[Hurdegaryp]

No
We have social instincts because it benefits our genes, it is based on kin selection and reciprocal altruism, group and species selection is not a real things.

It benefits our survival, and the survival of our genes, increasing the chance they will be passed on, which was more or less what Hurde was talking about.

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

[Fremont Forest]

Yes, in fact divine command theory is probably one of the weakest moral theories, because it has never really been able to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma first articulated by Plato: Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?

In the first case, God is not the moral lawgiver, he is simply restating something which exists independently from his command. In the second case, morality is reduced to "might makes right" on a cosmic scale.

[Esternial]

It benefits our survival, and the survival of our genes, increasing the chance they will be passed on, which was more or less what Hurde was talking about.

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

Might have something to do with your phrasing, then.

[Risottia]

It benefits our survival, and the survival of our genes, increasing the chance they will be passed on, which was more or less what Hurde was talking about.

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

Happens quite often when debating morality and religious issues. Maybe that's because those fields and the relative terms are incredibly poorly-defined.

[Sociobiology]

It benefits our survival, and the survival of our genes, increasing the chance they will be passed on, which was more or less what Hurde was talking about.

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

people talking about group selection is a pet peeve of mine, it encourages a prevalent misunderstanding about evolution.

[Hurdegaryp]

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

Might have something to do with your phrasing, then.

It's probably that, since English is not my first language.

Another case where someone disagrees with me while actually agreeing with me. It happens a lot in this thread.

Happens quite often when debating morality and religious issues. Maybe that's because those fields and the relative terms are incredibly poorly-defined.

And we sure do love a bit of confusion to fuel the fires of debate.

[Drury Lane]

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

Human interdependancy is tied to environmental control. You put us in an adverse enough environment, and the concept of individual needs becomes moot, when one cant individually fulfill them. However, as people overcome their external limitations, their codependancy generally relaxes as individual efforts start counting for more. Which then allows for the subjective nature of individual human motivation to come into play and cause social tension.
Squeeze hard enough, and eventually we are all forced into such a focused communal state that cultural evolution stalls. Why do you think the Lithic ages lasted so long?
However, once we begin building our own play rooms, somewhat independent of natural environs, and start filling them full of toys and games, the paradigm shifts. Now youve got an environment where the occassional hyperactive overachiever, who doesnt have to put anymore effort into filling his belly than everyone else, has the time and chance at doing or creating something that advances an aspect of the human condition, though they most likely werent thinking far beyond their own kith and kin.

[Sun Wukong]

It's so obvious that good and evil are relative, isn't it?

No doubt the seal thinks bringing food to it's pup is unquestionably good, the highest of moral duty. And probably the penguin disagrees.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

This is a delightfully long-winded and self-refuting way to miss the point.

You know, I tried to start my own religion once too. Only, when I did it, it was so fucking epic that they wrote a book about it, and its been a best seller for hundreds of years.

[United States of White America]

Yes, in fact divine command theory is probably one of the weakest moral theories, because it has never really been able to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma first articulated by Plato: Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?

In the first case, God is not the moral lawgiver, he is simply restating something which exists independently from his command. In the second case, morality is reduced to "might makes right" on a cosmic scale.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes, in fact divine command theory is probably one of the weakest moral theories, because it has never really been able to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma first articulated by Plato: Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?

In the first case, God is not the moral lawgiver, he is simply restating something which exists independently from his command. In the second case, morality is reduced to "might makes right" on a cosmic scale.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sounds like a personal problem for you.

[United States of White America]

As far as I can see, I haven't been aggressive - and I haven't tried to take away your "right to complain" either. Merely tried to reason with you, that people have differing opinions. Also, this isn't a thread about Gay Marriage and its implications.

His outburst does give us an interesting insight in his true nature. Apparently he feels threatened whenever progress in the field of civil rights is made. That is actually a malevolent and tyrannical mindset masquerading as 'freedom'. Now that is not uncommon for fundamentalists, but it is a highly amoral and potentially dangerous (societally speaking) way of thinking.

Why?

[Godular]

Yes, in fact divine command theory is probably one of the weakest moral theories, because it has never really been able to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma first articulated by Plato: Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?

In the first case, God is not the moral lawgiver, he is simply restating something which exists independently from his command. In the second case, morality is reduced to "might makes right" on a cosmic scale.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It means god is either captain obvious or a tyrant.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

This is a delightfully long-winded and self-refuting way to miss the point.

You know, I tried to start my own religion once too. Only, when I did it, it was so fucking epic that they wrote a book about it, and its been a best seller for hundreds of years.

Allow me to elaborate on this point, to pounce on the matter.

I never denied that humans were animals. I was merely stating that, to my own beliefs which I have come up with- and yes I am aware that it can be dismissed as bullshit, but please try and keep an open mind- that animals have a purpose to serve humans. Humans are at the top of the food chain. They have conquered over all other animals. This may have been done by accident, but I believe (not "I know") that it was pre-determined by my God.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. Naturally, almost effortlessly, mankind rules this Earth and all of its inhabitants. I believe it was something I made up. Of course, you can go ahead and accuse me of acting the God I claim to worship, but that would be too easy for you, wouldn't it?

[Sun Wukong]

This is a delightfully long-winded and self-refuting way to miss the point.

You know, I tried to start my own religion once too. Only, when I did it, it was so fucking epic that they wrote a book about it, and its been a best seller for hundreds of years.

Allow me to elaborate on this point, to pounce on the matter.

I never denied that humans were animals. I was merely stating that, to my own beliefs which I have come up with- and yes I am aware that it can be dismissed as bullshit, but please try and keep an open mind- that animals have a purpose to serve humans. Humans are at the top of the food chain. They have conquered over all other animals. This may have been done by accident, but I believe (not "I know") that it was pre-determined by my God.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. Naturally, almost effortlessly, mankind rules this Earth and all of its inhabitants. I believe it was something I made up. Of course, you can go ahead and accuse me of acting the God I claim to worship, but that would be too easy for you, wouldn't it?

Demonstrate that you have "conquered over" ants. Because they still outweigh you.

And will still be here long after you've gone extinct.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Allow me to elaborate on this point, to pounce on the matter.

I never denied that humans were animals. I was merely stating that, to my own beliefs which I have come up with- and yes I am aware that it can be dismissed as bullshit, but please try and keep an open mind- that animals have a purpose to serve humans. Humans are at the top of the food chain. They have conquered over all other animals. This may have been done by accident, but I believe (not "I know") that it was pre-determined by my God.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. Naturally, almost effortlessly, mankind rules this Earth and all of its inhabitants. I believe it was something I made up. Of course, you can go ahead and accuse me of acting the God I claim to worship, but that would be too easy for you, wouldn't it?

Demonstrate that you have "conquered over" ants. Because they still outweigh you.

And will still be here long after you've gone extinct.

How rivetting. All of a sudden, I should bow down to ants now? Puny little ants? I never said humans would be dominant forever, only that they are meant to dominate. Of course, eventually- as the dialectic principle dictates- the have-nots in the human domination will rise up and take over. It's a matter of thesis and antithesis.

In answer to your question, one cannot demonstrate when one is not of nature. Nothing is natural anymore, anyway.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Demonstrate that you have "conquered over" ants. Because they still outweigh you.

And will still be here long after you've gone extinct.

How rivetting. All of a sudden, I should bow down to ants now? Puny little ants? I never said humans would be dominant forever, only that they are meant to dominate. Of course, eventually- as the dialectic principle dictates- the have-nots in the human domination will rise up and take over. It's a matter of thesis and antithesis.

In answer to your question, one cannot demonstrate when one is not of nature. Nothing is natural anymore, anyway.

Technically speaking, everything is within the laws of nature, and therefore natural.