What are the best arguments against the idea that "there is no morality without religion/God?"

Morality is subjective

Ethics tries to be objective

there are tons of arguments toward how ethics generate through history

You need to prove that something exists, not that something does not exist.
Either way, without god there can be no morality because everything is subjective and not fixed.

What is morality even? Religion says it's the rules given by god, but what would that be without god? Can you define what you think morality is? How could we determine what is morally right and wrong?

Is murder wrong? Is the death-penalty therefore wrong? Is self defense therefore wrong if it means killing someone? Is killing an intelligent ape wrong? A dog? A chicken? A fly?

One could argue that civilizations grow more intelligent as they go on, ethics gets more perfect with time, you could compare western civilization with any tribal savages and their western ethics would prevail as better and more defined, thanks to the philosophical background of each culture (with all the arguments and counter arguments to every position, a la hegel history of philosophy).

Probably as western civilization goes on, more and more debates about ethics will appear, and that will enrich the western ethics further

>inb4 but muh western does evil shit!

That's morality for you, people choose or not to be ethical, but ethics is set on stone in culture, everyone agrees that murder is bad, that is set in stone, but the degrees where it's accepted is where people start giving ground toward their own morality, you could say that in western society murder is ethically wrong, and you would be correct even if in western society there is people who murder (those are further from the ethically perfect person in western society, to the idea itself). Ethics isn't rebuild everytime someone is born, but morality indeed does.

While western civilization has debated things like that since long ago, some cultures haven't even thought about this, that's the key difference in ethics

desuarchive.org/his/

That's not the proposition.

The proposition is that there is no objective basis for morality without God.

You godless people can steal the morality that God provides, and know in your conscience whether what you do is good or evil, only because God exists and His morals exist, and you exist.

>gets more perfect with time
Therefore it is subjective and not a constant, fixed thing
>better and more defined
What is better? Why is it better?

>but ethics is set on stone in culture
No it's not. That is ridiculous. Just a few years ago being gay was seen as wrong, women had to shut up and stay in the kitchen, blacks were second class citizens, if at all. Morality, what we see as right and wrong, changes very quickly.

>everyone agrees that murder is bad
>where it's accepted
Oh, fuck off you idiot. You are one of those typical fucks that thinks he knows what is right and wrong and it's so easy and then you contradict yourself right away.
No one knows what is ethically right or wrong and you are certainly not better than everyone else by somehow knowing it.

Pointing out that ancient Greeks who laid the foundation of Western philosophy had no problem arguing for morality without appeal to God.

Are you saying the ancient Greeks were atheists?

Because if so, im laffin

>Are you saying the ancient Greeks were atheists?
No, I'm saying that Greek philosophers rarely used "because God" as an argument for being good.

Please explain. It is a real philosophical question, regardless if you believe it's not.

Whats the point though? There's no real motive to be a good person if that's the case. If it's all going to end, and there will be nothing forever afterwards, shouldn't you just do what makes you happy? If you get a rush from murder, why not?

So moral relativism? Explain

top kek, such an edgy post

I can agree that your morality is like the wind, typical of a weak mental fortitude, changing everyday because how you feel, but if you were actually serious about this, you would try to philosophy using reason and logic instead of edgy feelings.

There are tons of discussions regarding ethics, that is why you can agree that ethics nowadays are better than before

This however, doesn't work for the edgy teenager that only seeks knowledge to confirm his world view where every human being is bad and really really scary :(

So since i know you haven't read shit about ethics and morality, I will give you three short books:

Euthyphro by Plato
Crito by Plato
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals by Hume
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant

>inb4 muh derrida

Fuck off, you don't even know the fundamentals

By pointing out that the existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with morality's justification in the slightest. To understand this, lets first look at the various things people mean when they say morality is "objective"

1. They mean the morality is universally followed. This is evidently not the case, for their is no value or value system so prevalent that all people follow it. Few people argue this, outside certain hedonists, so I'll move on.

2. They mean the morality is universally known of. This is evidently not true either, for if a morality was universally known of we wouldn't be having this conversation. This argument is typically made by people who try and act like their philosophy is universal and their opponents are just lying to themselves and pretending to not know to piss off the arguer in question.

3. They mean the morality is objective because it appeals to some aspect of Nature. This kind of morality is 'objective' only insofar as all of its means take reference to objective cause-effect relationships. Its ends however are entirely arbitrary. Most attempts at 'scientific' morality fall here, as do many moral systems [Aristotle's for instance].

4. They mean the morality is universally enforced. Violators are punished, there is a legislation regarding those who pursue false values. This is where the argument comes to a head, as this is literally the only model of objective morality that benefits from assuming God exists, and it amounts to pure Might is Right. It doesn't prove that the philosophy is superior, merely that there exists a philosophy which is universally enforced by force.
[Cont]

Still, how could most if not all people know that murder, rape, incest, is bad? Instinct?

Thats what I meant. "Is there an objective morality". But ultimately I think everyone else could infer that's what I meant.

Which would be fine, if not for the fact that most of the people who make the argument "God is required to justify morality" are doing so in DEFIANCE of the idea of might makes right. To claim that governments and princes are being illogical when they force their values on others, but God isn't when He does the same, is ridiculous. The typical response "Well they're not God!", tells us nothing of philosophical interest, because concepts like legitimacy or sovereignty or authority all rest on a presumed value system that justifies these concepts, and what we're looking for is a value system to justify them.

So what then shall we say, is there no objective morality? Not necessarily. I myself am a Christian, and I see two possibilities for it. The first is simply that this is a case of indirect divine command theory, which is to say the Deity created the cosmos with certain ends in mind and the creatures within it to seek those ends, and legislates to punish those who don't. Existentially this still isn't a very good objective morality, since it is simply one Being cowering all the others into line. It would mean there really isn't anything wrong with sinners or evildoers, other then their misfortune in being born into a cosmos ruled by a being who doesn't share their values.

The other possibility, which I hold more likely, is that there is some kind of meta-values that exists in all possible conscious beings [God included], as a necessary part of being a conscious being. In other words, all value-sets are merely means of various degrees of efficiency to these base values, which are not held [as though a position] but simply are, and tie into the basis of mind and will itself. What these values could be, I have no idea, other then that simple answers like 'happiness' or 'pleasure' or 'power' are clearly wrong. Something more complicated, becoming perhaps, or craving, or something even more esoteric is more likely.

>>>>>>>

Hume and Kant both tries to reply that question in their own way

Why do you even ask such a question? You gave no explanation yourself for what you seem to believe is true.

There is no (objective) reason why we should be nice to each other. If I can fuck your gf and you raise my son, great for me. If I eat your food, good for me. If I smash in your head and live on your fertile land, in the house you constructed, fuck the wife you once had, good for me.

Being nice to each other is only good if the others do it, for yourself it's a disadvantage. It's something we want to portray as a universal truth so as to have everyone act accordingly.

>hurr durr i can be bad and get away with it it means there is no ethics whatsoever XD

Since you only can think with retarded examples, i will give you another one:

People who are unethical always search for someone ethical, unethical people don't like between themselves

>inb4 laarping as a lone wolf that can live a solitary life hunting gathering alone

just kekking at your childish redpill worldview

unethical people don't like other unethical people*

Not everyone is religious, nor do we all have the same religion, nor the same interpretations of our religions. Objectively as you are arguing is actually impossible.
>If morality was universally known
More or less, there's not many cultures that condone cannibalism, murder, or rape (given a few outliers). This is (I think) what they mean when they say "objective". Given not everyone agrees on certain aspects of this idea, of course

I fucking love Kant.

If you bothered to read my post you would know I was arguing AGAINST simple divine command theory as a basis for morality.

You're literally just agreeing with me.

Ok lets start with your argument

>without god there can be no morality because everything is subjective and not fixed.

Your standpoint is "without god there can be no morality". The reason you gave to support your standpoint is that "everything is subjective and not fixed."

Now to get a complete argument we need one more piece of information to connect your reason to your standpoint.

Why do you think that everything being subjective supports your standpoint that without god there can be no morality?

What is the concept that warrants the connection between your reason and your standpoint?

>They mean the morality is universally followed.
Nope.

Universally revealed.

That is my second point, and no such universally revealed morality exists. Seriously does it kill you people to read before commenting?

You seem amoral. If that's the case, I have no more to say.

Also, do I need to include my own views in order to invite conversation? To ask a question?

You would like Hobbes, if you ever get the chance.

Many atheists would argue that there is some aspect of universal morality. You can read up on it, if youd like.

There's a massive distinction between an utter and complete lack of morality and having or not having an objective basis for that morality to begin with.

Using God as the objective basis for morality, each and every human being is evil.

And we don't like that. So we pretend we are not evil, and compare ourselves on a subjective and relative curve to people we think are more evil than we are, proclaiming ourselves to be "good people" in comparison to them.

As God is the objective basis for morality, and the standard for that basis is perfection, and as morality is enforced from above, not just based from above, all of humanity being deemed evil by the Law Giver and Creator is a problem for humanity.

A problem God had to die for to fix.

What society for sport eats 1 year old babies?

It doesn't kill me, but I usually do post something about the first thing, before reading the second thing.

Sure hope that's okay with you.

As far as being universally revealed, it is literally written on your heart, and you were literally given a conscience to know right from wrong, as was all of humanity. So yes, universally revealed.

There are none.

>their is no value or value system so prevalent that all people follow it
All people shame cowards and adulterers.

Trick question, the people who hold to those kinds of values are incapable of maintaining a society. This is the error C.S. Lewis made when he argued for his idea of universally known morality, he only measured societies.

The reason that basic moral concepts like "Do not murder" and "Do not rape" are so widespread in civilized society is because they're a prerequisite for civilized society. If a civilized society exists, it exists because it understood basic reciprocity and long-term planning [for whatever value-set it happened to follow].

I can show you plenty of criminals and barbarians who think eating 1 year old babies is perfectly fine, and have absolutely no moral guilt over doing so.

So God given morality is necessary for a cohesive society.

Good to know.

Why is so hard to understand the difference between morals and ethics? morality is personal, ethics is the case were a perfect judgement would know the perfect outcomes and consequences of every action, and thus would know what is just or not

Since humans lack judgement, they can't choose always the most ethically correct solution, they just choose what it goes more to their morality

Knowledge and philosophy tries to clear judgement through time

>inb4 but what is good judgement

consult your nearest philosophy book and start reading

>inb4 there is no good judgement at all

kys

Morality is good and evil.
Ethics is right and wrong.

>All people shame cowards and adulterers

You literally need look no farther then the modern decadent West to know that is not true.
Except that is not true. The conscience doesn't tell you what's right or wrong, it just makes you feel guilt whenever you do something you believe to be wrong.

If what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the origins of moral systems, since everyone would simply have the same moral system, namely that of universal conscience. This conversation itself is proof against that idea, if the widely divergent philosophies and values of Mankind in every culture under heaven was not obvious enough a proof.

>All people shame cowards and adulterers.
Not only is this factually wrong, people also disagree on what constitutes those.

You have a vastly different concept of "cowardice" and "adultery" from the Romans, for example.

>kek edgy edgy fedora I'm so much smarter than you big names philosophy you're a teenager so edgy hahaa
God, you're pathetic. What kind of brainlet makes a statement like: "There are tons of discussions regarding ethics, that is why you can agree that ethics nowadays are better than before"
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Do you really think that this is an argument? It's better and right because there is more of it? You have read Plato, Hume and Kant and the most intelligent thought you have to defend your views is this plus ad hominem?

Why do you people even bother to read anything at all if you use no logic to evaluate what you read or what you think yourself? Without logic you can claim anything and it will be true just because you want it to.

Impressive that you wrote so much and said so little, since what is being argued is precisely the methods by which one determines 'good judgment' and how the only one that benefits from assuming monotheism is the philosophy of force.

>You literally need look no farther then the modern decadent West to know that is not true.
Wrong.

>a vastly different concept of "cowardice" and "adultery" from the Romans
I doubt that.

>people also disagree on what constitutes those.
People might disagree over some specific situations, but in general it's pretty clear.

Without the fear of punishment (which in this case is otherworldly and inevitable), people will act immoraly (talking about Christian morals). Not all of people of course, probably not even majority, but that's irrelevant.
I do not mean to imply that heavily religious societies are great, but you have to consider the IQ distribution among any population and that those people can't easily grasp why acting in some way is good or bad for society as whole. As society unravels everyone suffers.
tl;dr people need directions set by a "higher being"
So individually no, person can be moral without being religious, but on society scale it's bad.

This is a perfect example of my second definition of objective morality. You refuse to believe other positions exist.

Everyone else is just pretending to be retarded because they don't want you to be right.

Why should I expect stupid people to be better at following vague commandments from God than the law?

>The conscience doesn't tell you what's right or wrong, it just makes you feel guilt whenever you do something you believe to be wrong.

Yes, that's how it works.

The only way a philosophical position can develop is when it collides with the counter argument and develops some synthesis

that's why history of philosophy is important, you could name it the history of the mind, or the spirit

what you think yourself is just what developed through that history of the mind, it's laughable that you think it's your own thinking without any reference at all

I will give you a tip, if you increase your vocabulary (which philosophy does by anchoring ideas to words), you can increase your judgement of every situation, in this case, language and discussion is key, there is a reason why people who start thinking on another language usually lose some kind of values and start favoring others, and if they don't know much about that language they become simple minded

>we wouldn't be having this conversation

Your assumption that everyone would choose good and avoid evil is false.

It's the most false thing that has ever been uttered on planet earth.

The empirical evidence for the falsity of that statement is so overwhelming that you could spend the rest of your life uncovering it and not scratch the surface.

And yet it is the most intellectually resisted idea there is.

Because vague comandments have otherworldly and inevitable sanctions. "Fear of God" if you want. It's a very powerful thing.

It's just the love of sophistry. You'll grow out of it next semester.

>You're agreeing with me.
I'm not disagreeing, but I think your idea of objectivity is too strict in some sense. Even if God were a basis for morality, morality might need to be learned. As in there might be a universal morality that not everyone knows/respects.

Look at the crime rates in religious countries. Religion doesn't seem to be too successfull with teaching them good morals.

>"Fear of God" if you want.
Aye, the beginning of wisdom is to fear God. The most evil vicious killer on earth can only destroy your body; God can destroy your body and cast your soul into hellfire forever. And will.

Yes, fear God. Begin the path to wisdom.

>One could argue that civilizations grow more intelligent as they go on, ethics gets more perfect with time

Modern ethics is absolute shit compared to ethics in the Hellenistic period.

Then its useless for telling right from wrong. A person who by Christian standards is totally and completely evil could have a clear and serene conscience because he believes what he is doing is right.

All conscience serves to do then is help enforce consistency. A very useful function, to make people who think certain things are wrong hesitate to do them even when there is no immediate threat of punishment, but utterly useless if we're trying to figure out what actually makes a given action good or evil.

Fear of God is only a thing if you believe. Besides, people still do immoral things even when they do believe
I have more reason to fear the state, personally. I'd be better off worshipping them

Again with the same argument.

If every single human being ever perfectly understood every single one of God's moral commandments, every single human being would violate every single one of God's moral commandments, and thus be evil.

And morality, unlike philosophy, is enforced from above. Crime and punishment. Good is rewarded; evil is punished with death.

Those are usually impoverished societies with difficult history and cultural issues. No one is implying religion magically makes society great. But without religion they would probably be worse.

Not useless. It is meant to drive you to despair, to realize that you can never be good on your own. You can never use your knowledge of good and evil to be like God.

The devil lied.

And in that despair, you can throw yourself at the feet of God and beg for His grace and mercy, which are abundant, and which will be given to you, freely.

faustian modern civilization is rather new, hellenistic civilization was in their last stages before dying

>Be excellent to each other
Morality doesn't deal only with treating other people.

>Wyld Stallions reference

>your head

>faustian
Are you using this term unironically?

But I do not think God is the basis for morality, I think it is likely some feature of consciousness.

I should clarify by morality here I mean values themselves, as in the ends we seek, not specific prohibitions.
I'm not assuming everyone would choose good, I'm assuming everyone will do ultimately what they truly value. Which is obviously a tautology, that "people do as they will".

What I'm saying is that in order for your philosophy to be true, everyone on earth would have to secretly have Christian values, and only be pretending to have other values out of some evil instinct or desire to befuddle you.

This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the highest order.

i want to trigger you about how i use terms to define whatever i want

>some empty aphorism that's supposed to make people feel warm and fuzzy but has nothing behind it
How's it any different from religion

You have to understand I am talking about groups, not individuals. I'm not saying this out of malice or feelings of superiority, but do you really think that people of average or below average intelligence (huge majority in any society) can truly grasp secular humanism for example?
Religion (for the masses) is very simple. I am of course not implying that religion is 100% efficient. But it's pretty efficient compared to pseudo-religions. And almost every ideology becomes pseudo-religion when you introduce it to masses. Only pseudo-religions lack the otherworldly and inevitable punishment, which lessens the motivation to act in accordance to accepted morals.

To further inquire, where do you think morality comes from? Consciousness is pretty vague. And if it's instinct, then shouldn't it be known by all?

desu most people follow prosperity theology nowadays

Exactly.

God: Follow my commandments.
Devil: Do as thou whilst.

Most people are children of the devil.

>You refuse to believe other positions exist.
You didn't even mention what these supposed "other positions" even are.

>This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the highest order.

It isn't, actually. Every single human being has a chance to believe, and be saved. None were born merely to perish.

Would you please stop acting like you have any wisdom at all? Why try and convert me, I have told you already I am a Christian, all glory to the Most High for He is worthy of praise.

Stop spewing simplistic drivel when we're trying to have a serious conversation. Shit like this is exactly why the atheists are winning, you're all too anti-intellectual. Every time the atheists try and seize ground in a cultural issue, you all fall back, you yield ground, you refuse to engage them with anything other then blind repetitions of Scriptures they do not even believe!

We deserve every defeat we get, if THIS is how we act. I get so tired of entering philosophical threads, trying to argue a sophisticated Christian perspective, taking into account all counterarguments to make clear the oracles of God, when some snakecharming mystical fool runs in and starts spewing soundbites he heard in Sunday school against concepts he clearly does not even understand.

Most groups follow their leader. For instance, the Johah story, when he finally gets to Ninevah and tells his version of ISIS that God is going to judge them, the king tears his clothes, puts ashes on his head, and repents. His kingdom follows. He bought them 40 more years.

>Would you please stop acting like you have any wisdom at all?

No Christian would say this to me.

I don't see how my arguments are retarded, if I do bad to others I can have an advantage. Therefore "be nice to each other" is merely a phrase used to motivate people to be nice to each other, but it's not a universal truth.

Because morality, to me, is a fixed set of rules regarding whether something is right or wrong. Similar to gravity or other fixed sets of rules that exist in our universe. If morality exists, we could define it, measure it, clearly say whether something is right or wrong, but we can not. One famous example is murder, many if not all automatically say murder is wrong but then immediately contradict themselves by trying to define special cases where it's okay. It's all subjective, made up by the current civilization.
If you think morality exists, then tell me, is it right to sleep with another man or not? Vast majority of the world will say it's wrong, modern western civilistation will say it's right. Can you determine with your fixed logic whether it's right or wrong?
.
God could make such fixed rules because he can do everything. (though of course one could go one step further and end up asking whether gods rules are moral themselves or something like that. For example, I don't think that flooding the entire earth was very moral and it contradicts with the new testament god that is much nicer. I guess god himself changes his morals in the bible, from mass murder to all loving Jesus).

It's not exactly a satisfying thought that moral does not exist because the world would be much easier if it was black and white, good guys vs bad guys, but it's not. In the end the entire discussion is without merit because we never really defined what all of this means and now we are just arguing about definitions.

>Stop spewing simplistic drivel

The gospel, to you, a professing Christian, is, to you, spewing simplistic drivel.

This is not a tough call.

You are no Christian, at all.

>I don't think that flooding the entire earth was very moral and it contradicts with the new testament god that is much nicer.

If you knew the hybrid monsters that God drowned so that you could live, you would not be so foolish as to think there is more than one God.

Do you believe that the degree of determination of an act matters to decide the morality of the act?

If God came down and cast a spell onto you to feel super horny so that you literally couldn't do anything other than commit adultery, would that be as immoral as someone doing that without divine intervention?
Or is someone doing that without having a spell cast onto him more immortal?

>immortal
immoral*

>be religious for decades
>quit and go atheist
>oh man, there really are a lot of holes in religious argumentation
>ask religious dudes about it
>oh no, nononono, you got it all wrong, this theological essay from more than a thousand years after our religion was funded explains it all
>nobody back in church every bothered explaining this to me
>wonder why people don't take religions seriously when religions themselves only push a simplified version on the average person
>read up theological stuff
>it doesn't make sense either

Again, I never implied religion is totally efficient.
It's just another factor for society. It won't prevent or suvive everything but that doesn't make it useless.

I should first clarify what I mean by 'morality', for I'm using it here in a far more universal sense then usual. I'll summarize my idea.

1. All deliberated actions are the basis of evaluative reasoning, the weighing between alternatives.

2. All evaluative reasoning stems from implicit or explicit value-sets, a hierarchy of desires that are held by a certain person, wherein some values are held to be desirable purely for the sake of another thing [for instance, vitamins are desirable only insofar as they aid health] and others are desired for both their own sake and as means to another thing, and in theory a man's highest values would be those that are desired for their own sake.

This is where all value-systems come from, is their highest values. Every value set starts with an axiom, a presupposition. For instance "Maximize pleasure" or "Obtain eudaimonia" or "Follow the will of God". This is the highest value, from which all other values act primarily as means. The problem is that these highest values are all axioms, they're assumed, they have no basis other then the assertion. This is why philosophers can never agree on anything, they're all starting from their own subjective premises.

My argument's here can help serve as a kind of attempt to circumvent this reality.
By finding some way to judge between value-systems without making recourse to your own value-system. The way I envision this is to assume the problem doesn't really exist. That at the lowest levels of intelligence, all of our supposed highest values are just ideas we came up with to satisfy very subtle fundamental desires.

If this is the case, then all value-systems can be judged on the basis of their efficiency to these primary values, which in theory motivate our every action and which inspired God to create the universe.

You can't even put a fucking point at the end of your sentences or start a sentence with a capital letter, yet you try to lecture me about vocabulary and language?

Did you see my question?

I've never had anyone ask me a question and leave saying they did not receive an answer to their question.

However, they could say they did not receive an answer they liked to their question. Huge difference. And if you're in the Sunday School "Where did Cain get his wife from?" category, or struggling with the triune nature of an eternal spirit being, there is an answer to any question you have.

Why should anyone accept your subjective definition of morality?

Nice evasive maneuvers.

Intentions matter, but being maximally horny won't force someone into adultery, their decision will.

>1. All deliberated actions are the basis of evaluative reasoning, the weighing between alternatives.

Are you 12? Seriously, are you a child who has been kept in a cage?

Unless you're a Sociopath or Psychopath, everyone is born with a general sense of what's right and wrong.

Morals are for Naruto fans. Don't care about people's feelings.