Morality Without God

[@bonnie43uk]

Thanks for this upload, I've seen a few video's explaining where we got our morality from, this gentleman explained it very well.

[@jeremymiller4189]

Many people consider objective morality to mean either morals are the same for everyone and/or morals exist independently of humans. I believe good is just the word humans gave to behavior resulting from humans relying on culture and banding together in groups to survive.

[@Nukliar]

To correct on the example of Abraham: killing isn't always an act of evil (e.g. euthanasia, self defense...). If it were there'd by no court cases in that regard and a killer would go straight to jail with no questions asked as to why they did what they did. In Abraham's case, God didn't simply call for a kill but rather an 'offering' (a typification of Jesus if you notice the parallel). Abraham was chosen to be the 'father of many nations' which you can imagine is a massive responsibility. Thus God was proving Abraham to be of a character capable of handling that position. God's test was whether Abraham would count God as greater than the promise of what he would get- the son through whom the nations would come. If Abraham only served God for a promise then his wrong motives would've created a line of descendants that would rebel instead of passing on the character of God; a nation that serves to 'get' NOT gets as it serves unconditionally. Let me put it another way: Imagine you're poor and in dire need of financial help. A billionaire comes to you and promises to make you rich, but before going on to actually entrust you with the riches they intend to give you, they first give you a portion. With this portion they say, 'don't spend it on yourself but rather help and provide others needs first'. Now being poor you have a good use for the money for your own needs but the rich person is testing to see whether you're going to be selfish with the smaller amount which would result in you abusing the greater amount. That's what that segment of scripture was about. Man looks at the outward appearance (action), the Lord looks at the heart (intention). Also, why do atheists speak as though serving God is a one sided action offering no reward? "Do good because I demand it?" Truth is: do good and benefit from the results of it.

[@iMacxXuserXx485]

Idk why people have to be so mean in discussing either side here. I am Orthodox Christian and I am just interested in knowing how one could have objective morality without God, since it pisses me off when people hate religion but then talk for days about human rights. Why do we have rights? Why should people exist and fight for their existence? I think this guy gives a good clear explanation of the argument he is discussing, and he's also reducing it to a short video as he said. The Ayn Rand idea of morality needing existence to be up for debate in the first place is interesting enough.

[@bloodsoldierZ]

Why is your god's opinion any less subjective than anyone else's? because you say so? lol

[@Sekhubara]

We have rights because we want them. People exist and fight for their existence because it is a biological drive to remain alive. People who hate religion then talk about human rights do so because Scripture often describes God as being against human rights.

[@vodkatonyq]

We have rights because without them life is not possible.

[@Sekhubara]

As a point of discussion, what objective moral standard comes from God?

[@RosannaMiller]

The goal of Hitler or Stalin's life did not care about your life!! They don't care if you like it or not. You NOT living is what gives them joy and happiness in life.

[@trevorwongsam9937]

In order for there to be an absolute objective morality is necessary that it stands over and above matters of opinion - and must even stand when the majority of people don't agree. Consider the fact that it took over 5 thousand years of recorded history to come to "slavery is wrong"

[@rsll1986]

Trevor Wongsam Excellent point. I could only watch 5 minutes of the guy. The guy uses circular reasoning. Then at some point, if i challenged him, he is forced to say, "because I said so", or "the point is self evident." The cannot be the foundation of an absolute morality so I stopped watching.

[@BarbaPamino]

The Greeks were debating slavery 2500 years ago. But in the end they deemed it necessary to progress and found reasons to justify it. Philosophy didn't end slavery. Machinery did. If the industrial revolution never happened then slavery would still be a part of the western world. You can pay someone to drove a forklift. You can't pay anyone to be a forklift. For that you need slaves.

[@kyleserrecchia5300]

His argument does stand over and above matters of opinion. It's based on facts.

[@holyshmolly]

In essence what he's saying is that if there is no God than there is no purpose in the world. So the only rational goal in life is to enjoy it as much as possible. I.e. happiness. Morals are simply a strategy of how to achieve this. That all makes sense. However, That is really a redefinition of morality from the mainstream. If someone has 3 weeks to live and decides what would really give them pleasure is to kidnap, rape, murder and eat little children then there is no rational reason not to do so. And our feeling that its evil or bad is hypocritical. In fact based on the definition in the video, it could be said to be immoral NOT to act in the way that would give him happiness. We might object because this type of thinking would destroy society and therefore try to stop it, but there is no reason he should care, he's got 3 weeks to live. In fact slavery becomes moral because it led to enhanced happiness for slave owners, unless we can prove that it would ultimately come back to bite the slave owners in which case its a bad strategy. Sure its not good for the slaves happiness but who cares. The sense that something is wrong, evil. That a person shouldn't harm other people even if they can get away with it completely seemingly can't be justified without GOD. No doubt athiests still behave morally, but it is a logical hypocrisy. A hypocrisy I hope they sustain.

[@diegomorales8616]

Rand's main contribution was to prove morality comes from reality. For more detail: aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/the-objectivist-ethics.html

[@RosannaMiller]

Diego Morales lol. What's reality? It is subjective!

[@rochecr]

moral should act in the supreme reign of the reason, supported by the reality

[@freeharmonics3738]

In the video, he says that morality is whatever furthers human life and enables human life to prosper. If one does not want to live, he says, then they have no use of morality, and it does not apply to them. This is not objective morality. This is subjective utilitarianism. What if, for example, a person does not care to live beyond a short amount of time nor to live well in that time and decides to go around murdering people. According to the video, this is not immoral for that person because the person doing it does not value living well and therefore has no need for values or morality. What is objectively moral is applying the correct means to attaining values but the actual values themselves are subjective according to what he is saying. Objective morality, though, is something which exists independent of human consciousness. This means that it is immoral for someone to go around murdering people whether they wish to live and live well or not. Objective morality applies even to those who reject life. If it only applies to people who value life and living well, then it is subjective. Since he is an atheist, he has to take this subjective position. For non conscious and non rational things, there is no "ought". There is only "is". If there were no God, morality, in terms of what values to accept and pursue, would only exist in the minds of human beings. So it could only be the subjective utilitarianism put forward in the video. There can only be an objective morality if existence itself is moral. However, since morality requires rational consciousness, that means an objective morality requires a conscious and moral existence. In other words, objective morality requires a conscious and moral God. God is the eternal existence. By definition then, everything God says is objective truth, since existence itself is the objective primacy of all things. Because he does not believe in God, he is then a moral subjectivist. Atheism and objectivism logically contradict each other. Atheism is the metaphysics of subjective collectivism. It is logically opposed to objective morality and individualsim.

[@vodkatonyq]

Wrong. Yours is the intrinsicist view that morality is just there as some divinely provided axiom. God is not existence. Existence is existence and a human being can only evaluate existence based on human life because human life is a human being's way of experiencing existence. Existence without human life has no moral dimensions because only human beings can be moral due to being gifted with free will that is granted by the ability to reason. So morality cannot be intrinsic to existence itself but only to human life. Morality can only emerge when you have existence that is able to make moral decisions and the only element of existence that can do that is human beings.

[@RosannaMiller]

Gibberish....nonsense.... bull!! As an Atheist, you cannot tell me that anything I do is absolutely wrong!! You may not like something I do but so?

[@babbisp1]

Every moral has to have a consequence. While you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', you _are_ able to get an 'ought' from an 'if'. If you care what God says and if you want to go to Heaven and if you believe you won't be forgiven in any other way, then you _ought_ to follow the bible.

[@PEPCIS]

"There's nothing more dangerous than people who choose to be dangerous"??

[@RosannaMiller]

Like I said, without God, there is no objective good or bad.

[@tsummerlee]

Yeeeeeeesssss!

[@cttballer23]

It’s not our subconscious in religion that gives us morality. It’s the living, moving eternal, all powerful, all knowing, loving, Holy Spirit that lives inside us. The Holy Spirit is given from God because of His grace alone. Without God, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality only exists if is eternal, and unchanging (which cannot exist without God). To Him be glory, forever.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

There is no objective morality. There is only subjective morality. Even the morality of the god of the bible is subjective. The god of the bible gives numerous commands which are always countermanded and contradicted by some other commandment or action. A person can literally choose which section of the bible he/she wants to go by to affirm their actions are moral. For example, if a person wants to believe that killing is immoral, they can read the section in Exodus where Moses brings down the 10 commandments. However, if a person wants to believe that killing is moral, all they have to do is read a bit further where Moses commands, at the behest of god, that the men of his tribe kill all the men, women, children and goats of those god deems disobedient. Or they could literally go to any other section of the bible where god commits genocide and/or mass murder. There is no way for the morality to be both objective and inconsistent. Objective morality is absolute, which means it is unchanging. Under objective morality, what is wrong will always be wrong and what is right will always be right. As the morality of the bible is self contradictory and inconsistent, with certain actions being considered moral at times and immoral at other times, it cannot be objective.

[@cttballer23]

Wes Baumguardner Yes there is objective morality, because Gods commands are unchanging. The Bible does not contradict itself. Understanding the context to a passage/verse/chapter is very important to understanding the Bible as a whole. Also, understanding the purpose for why God created humans is important. He created them for his glory. If he decides to take out an entire generation of people with plagues, that is within his power to do so. Why would it be immoral for God to commit Genocide? Your trying to prove God is wrong by using subjective morality. I’ll leave you with a verse, Romans 9:21, “Has the Potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another dishonorable use.”

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@cttballer23 Objective is defined as "being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject." Subjective is defined as "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought." If god is a thinking being that can change his or her mind, as portrayed in the Bible, his morality is subjective. The only way for god's morality to be objective is if it is not of god's mind or perception which means the morality would have to be inherent in the object of the morality, i.e. objective. In the example I provided earlier, god commanded the Israelites not to kill and did not include any covets or exceptions but then turned around and commanded them to kill. The Israelites were in a predicament. They could violate his first command and kill or they could violate his second command and not kill. They could not do both. Either way, they would violate one of god's commands. This is entirely subjective morality on display. In this case, god is the subject creating the so-called morality. Objective morality would be entirely consistent and unchanging. The bible's morality is completely inconsistent. There is no contextual issue here. The contradiction is blatant, apparent, and unavoidable. If you wish to argue otherwise, please provide support for your argument.

[@cttballer23]

Wes Baumguardner God does not portray himself in the Bible as the “thinking” being as you define it, he is the objective creator of the morals. God did not command the Israelites not to kill, and then turnaround and command them to kill. There is absolutely a difference between killing, and murder. There is a difference between war, capital murder, suicide, and man slaughter in Gods eyes. Your using an example of killing to prove a contradiction, but your argument is flawed, because your not understanding the context of scripture and your viewing killing and murder one in the same. Do you think that slavery was absolutely wrong? What about Hitler killing millions of Jews, was that wrong? In addition, how did the universe begin to exist? How does such finely tuned creation exist? What about the miracles of Christ? There is factual evidence that these miracles occurred. I’m just trying to say that it takes more faith to not believe in a God, than it does to believe in a God. It’s a logical decision to believe in God.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@cttballer23 God does not portray himself in the bible. The bible portrays god and it does so as a thinking being. The bible claims god is the objective creator of morals, but there could not be such a being as that is a self contradiction just as a square circle is a contradiction. If god creates something, it must be subjective creation, god being the subject of which creates the object. Hypothetically, an all powerful being could create an object with the properties of morality, and the object would have the objective property of morality, but the creation by god is a subjective creation of and object with objective morality. You are correct, there is a difference between killing and murder. Killing is taking another person's life. Murder is taking another person's life without their consent. Killing is a much more broad definition than murder. Murder is a subtype of killing. God commands the Israelites not to kill, period; no excuses, no reasons, no exceptions. Then he commands them to kill various members of the tribe whom he deems unfaithful; directly contradicting the first order. Yes, slavery is absolutely wrong. Your bible disagrees with me, but that is because your book is wrong. There is no justification for slavery whatsoever. Killing is wrong, too. The only possible justification for killing is in defense of one's self or another person against a person whom is initiating violence or threatening to initiate violence and has the capacity to carry out the threats immediately. That is not what happens in the bible. In the example I provided, god commands the Israelites to kill women, children, and goats just because he said so. Now we are getting way off topic with the how did the universe begin question. The answer is I do not know, but I suspect there was no beginning or creation. I do not support the big bang theory because I am aware of several flaws with its derivation which would take a long time to discuss fully. "How does such finely tuned creation exist?" That is a loaded question, which any response would have to assume there was a creation. I do not make that assumption, therefore I cannot answer that question. What about the purported miracles of Christ? I have no evidence they ever happened. All I have is stories, but those are not evidence. Just as I have no evidence that any of the miracles that happened in The Odyssey occurred. If you want to state that the bible is evidence for itself, then you must take the same exact assumption with The Odyssey to be logically consistent. Are you willing to do that? " I’m just trying to say that it takes more faith to not believe in a God, than it does to believe in a God. It’s a logical decision to believe in God." It absolutely does not. There is no faith required to reject the premise that a god exists, just as it does not take any faith to reject the premise that the tooth fairy exists. It requires faith to accept a claim as faith is belief in a concept regardless of whether or not there is evidence. The onus is on the positive claim to provide evidence as to the existence of some being.

[@RosannaMiller]

There are no virtues without God.

[@PEPCIS]

Sorry, but I see little use of logic in your explanation. For example, when you try to explain the "logical" reason that we need morality, you base it upon some illusory conception that life demands it. But not all people are of the same opinion in this regard, so logic DEMANDS that you answer "Whose opinion regarding what is moral should reign supreme?"

[@kyleserrecchia5300]

Mark Pepin Life does require a certain course of action though or else living things die. That's what he means. Do you dispute that? Do you think on the contrary that living things can stay alive regardless of how they live?

[@vodkatonyq]

Human life is the objective standard for morality.

[@RosannaMiller]

Vodk Tonyq ok...so as far as Hitler or Stalin, your life is expendable.

[@RosannaMiller]

Kyle Serrecchia but without God, what you and he are saying is incoherent.