• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

If there is no god of any kind...

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?

I say that we become a divine civilization and destroy the world, make a new heaven out of it.

Of course, there's many careful steps of action we must take if we are to ever even come close to realizing such a grand scheme.

I think Carl Sagan has some good insights on what could make us great:

We Humans Are Capable Of Greatness
 
I

Infinite Bubble

Guest
If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?

We already have objective morality. All we needed was a mixture of instinct and imagination.

We also create our own value. And that's the greatest gift of all.
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
If we create our own value then what if the value of others is at the expense of some other group of people. Where do we draw the line? I've searched myself and history for that matter to try to find a scenario where humanity itself come out better off in a word with this kind of world view. I've done so as honestly and sincerely as I know how. In every precedent and in every foreseeable possibility I have only found more suffering more hopelessness and injustice for someone. If I were to subscribe to a form of agnosticism I feel like I would have to overestimate the nature of mankind. I've concluded the only way I can identify myself as being in any form godless is to find an answer to my op outside of any known deity. I cannot. The closest I have come is the mear history of man yet even in that I have found the presance of a god.
 

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
485
MBTI Type
INTp
You've jumped to a forgone conclusion that mankind needs some sort of objective morality. Human history (and behavior) seems to demonstrate to me that morality is completely subjective, so I would say there is no need for mankind to ascertain any means of objective morality. We're managing quite well without any.
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I wouldn’t call the condition of the world or management of it well. I actually can’t even think of anytime throughout history where it (the world) could be thought to be well managed. (At least imo)

My question is more so about the bases of what defines good and evil. (Good being that which is morally right. Evil defined as that which is morally wrong) If these are morally subjective terms then they are illusions. Hitler was no more good or evil than mother Theresa. If morality is all subjective and the value of human life is subject to be defined by any given individual murder, rape, torture ect are all good and evil. If these terms good, evil right and wrong at their core can be adequately defined and redefined on a whim by the 7 billion plus people on this planet then they might as well not exist. Undoubtedly my definition of good and evil will never align with that of everyone else.

We can then look at morality as subjective through a democratic lenses. The good of the majority is good and the evil as defined by the majority is evil. Then what of the minority? Technically their view point is no more wrong or right there just happens to be less of them. Then where is true morality? I think that leads to nihilism. That would be the only conclusion I can draw.
 

Comeback Girl

Ratchet Ass Moon Fairy
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
570
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Evolution. I don't think any species could keep existing without morality. Early humans would have all killed each other so they'd have all food and land left, so everyone would have been dead at some point.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Human beings (I assume all sentient beings) have a concept of good and experience something to the effect of happiness. This may seem to be subjective, but the process of your experiencing happiness is a physically real process (as are all things in your brain) and so in that sense it is objective. What's more, human beings are far more similar than they are different, and presumably other human beings have this capacity, too.

From this we may not get an absolute morality, but we can get an objective one in so far as we communicate and we can perceive emotion, and have influence on each other. Empathy is the closest thing to an objective morality.
 
I

Infinite Bubble

Guest
If we create our own value then what if the value of others is at the expense of some other group of people. Where do we draw the line?

That is one downside to freedom. But when I say "freedom", it isn't complete freedom. Thankfully we are maintained by ourselves. So there is a line. It is drawn by these instincts:

1. I must protect myself so that my genes may be passed on.
2. I must sustain the species as to continue survival.

Usually they are healthily balanced. If they are not, you get wars and murderers.

I've concluded the only way I can identify myself as being in any form godless is to find an answer to my op outside of any known deity. I cannot. The closest I have come is the mear history of man yet even in that I have found the presance of a god.

The easy part is following the objective morality. I'm guessing that you're already doing that, unless you are a criminal of sorts. Finding your own value is much more difficult. The first part is to accept that there is (probably) no value to anything in itself. Then find what you love. Focus on it, and value it. Build your life upon it.

You've jumped to a forgone conclusion that mankind needs some sort of objective morality. Human history (and behavior) seems to demonstrate to me that morality is completely subjective, so I would say there is no need for mankind to ascertain any means of objective morality. We're managing quite well without any.

Of course there's objective morality. I'd say morality is almost entirely objective. There are only small tweaks between one person and another. It's subjective in the fact that we make it up ourselves, but once it's established, then everyone follows the rules. If it was entirely subjective, we would've made ourselves extinct a long time ago.
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=19503]Comeback Girl[/MENTION] I feel to ground morals in evolution is irresponsible at this point. If we were to think of it this way we’d have a very Machiavellian sense of morality. Evil deeds are justified in times of scarcity or for the purpose of self-preservation. You could even say slavery is justified in early American history because if the slaves were freed the quality of life for white southerners was expected to dramatically decrease. Those that lynched and tortured blacks were not evil but they merely acted to ensure the quality of their lives and the preservation of their genes into the future.

See I think the problem of morality grounded in evolution is evolution implies that people and animals cooperate to sustain their species. I have even heard it said that in group’s animals and in early humans tribes developed and each member had to act morally so that others would not see them as counterproductive to the group cause. For example one caveperson is trying to reach fruit in a tree so he pulls the branch but he find he needs someone else to grab the fruit for him as he cannot bend the branch and take the food at the same time. Another caveperson helps him and they split the fruit. You can find videos online of experiments done with monkeys and elephants and observation of this behavior in nature.

My issue with this is what if the society is Nazi Germany. What if to be counterproductive of your “tribe” means to shelter the Jews form those that will place them in concentration camps and then starve them and or murder them by the thousands. That person that chose to go against the agenda of the predominate view of their society is immoral in terms of self-preservation and by law they have committed treason. So when there is nothing to be gained from an act of “morality” by the individual through the eyes of their community evolution cannot answer the question of why people are moral. When an act of morality is done despite the risk of your own detriment why do we chose to be moral? Better yet how do we define it?
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Human beings (I assume all sentient beings) have a concept of good and experience something to the effect of happiness. This may seem to be subjective, but the process of your experiencing happiness is a physically real process (as are all things in your brain) and so in that sense it is objective. What's more, human beings are far more similar than they are different, and presumably other human beings have this capacity, too.

From this we may not get an absolute morality, but we can get an objective one in so far as we communicate and we can perceive emotion, and have influence on each other. Empathy is the closest thing to an objective morality.

Yes but who is to say any of those things are to be valued. I can choose forgo the happiness of others and disregard empathy of another cause. If I deem the value of the emotional state of other people expendable for the sake of that cause then who is to say I have acted immorally?
 

Il Morto Che Parla

New member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,260
MBTI Type
xxTP
Benign self-interest. If there was barbarism we would all be worse off and so conscience has evolved through evolution? Or something?

Anyway, this is where law and order and states come in, "man is the wolf of man" so we all agree a "non-agression" pact with our neighbour.

Now if you were alone in a room with a guy, no cameras, no-one could ever find out, you were leaving the country the next day and had diplomatic immunity, you'd never met him, and you were offered $1 million to take him out, would you do it?

If not, why not? Because of God? but if God exists, that guy will go to heaven anyway, so why not do it?

Maybe some of us would and some of us wouldn't. But I hypothesize that the existence of God plays no role in the decision. Plus maybe He would forgive me anyway, so then I don't have to face my own conscience?
 

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
485
MBTI Type
INTp
We can then look at morality as subjective through a democratic lenses. The good of the majority is good and the evil as defined by the majority is evil. Then what of the minority? Technically their view point is no more wrong or right there just happens to be less of them. Then where is true morality? I think that leads to nihilism. That would be the only conclusion I can draw.
I think this is actually what we have (i.e. morality though a democratic lense). There is enough common human experience that we generally have a shared sense of what is morally correct. And yes, the minority is no more right or wrong (at least, not according to the minority). When the minority has the power to enforce their subjective viewpoint, they often do just that, and the rest of the world (a.k.a. the majority) terms these acts (which are immoral from the majority's viewpoint) "atrocities carried out by mad men".

If you think of it the other way, if morality was truly objective and not subjective, atrocities would be relatively rare. You would have to be a pyschopath/sociopath to not subscribe to the "objective truth". You would not get large groups sharing the same non-objective viewpoints. It would be almost impossible for a majority to form that felt that genocide or slavery is acceptable if there is an objective truth that such acts are immoral. But history shows us that many societies have formed that considered such acts moral. Furthermore, those very same societies later on change their view and deem these same acts are immoral. How can that happen if morality is objective? I say it can't. It can only happen if morality is subjective.
 

Comeback Girl

Ratchet Ass Moon Fairy
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
570
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=19503]Comeback Girl[/MENTION] I feel to ground morals in evolution is irresponsible at this point. If we were to think of it this way we’d have a very Machiavellian sense of morality. Evil deeds are justified in times of scarcity or for the purpose of self-preservation.

No, without morals people would even be evil in times without any type of scarcity. People would just want more and more and more and kill everyone who has something they'd like to have, maybe they'll also kill some people because they don't like them, or maybe they'll kill random people just for fun and before you know it, everybody has killed everybody and human life will be extinct. You're welcome.
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
If you think of it the other way, if morality was truly objective and not subjective, atrocities would be relatively rare. You would have to be a pyschopath/sociopath to not subscribe to the "objective truth". You would not get large groups sharing the same non-objective viewpoints. It would be almost impossible for a majority to form that felt that genocide or slavery is acceptable if there is an objective truth that such acts are immoral. But history shows us that many societies have formed that considered such acts moral. Furthermore, those very same societies later on change their view and deem these same acts are immoral. How can that happen if morality is objective? I say it can't. It can only happen if morality is subjective.

The inability of mankind to locate, idetify or adhere to an objective morality does not disprove it. Imo it merely points to a shortcoming within ourselves. How many time have you by your own standards agreed to or watched passively while something you didn't in agree with took place? I don't think anyone can say they have never acted against their moral code. If I ever found someone who truly did...I might call him/her the messiah? :shock: up until this moment...it has never really donned on me that this is exactly who the historical Jesus claimed to be. A man who has never acted against what he deemed to be immoral and even from an agnostic perspective that is amazing.
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
No, without morals people would even be evil in times without any type of scarcity. People would just want more and more and more and kill everyone who has something they'd like to have, maybe they'll also kill some people because they don't like them, or maybe they'll kill random people just for fun and before you know it, everybody has killed everybody and human life will be extinct. You're welcome.

I don't think you've given me anything to thank you for..:thinking:
 

iNtrovert

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
359
MBTI Type
Ni
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Finding your own value is much more difficult. The first part is to accept that there is (probably) no value to anything in itself. Then find what you love. Focus on it, and value it. Build your life upon it.

I don't tend to find a value judgment based on my subjective view all that credible. I am incapable of making a decision like that. I guess I’d say other people are important to me but I know I can't live in a world where that isn't grounded in something greater than myself. To accept that there is no value in anything itself for me is madness. I know I couldn't live like that. Knowing I was chasing after a mission that I know to be intrinsically futile for me is the same to be void of purpose all together. I need to know that it all means something and I think most people do. To ignore that fore me would be like the biggest cop out and a waste of a life.

I'm sure I could have found a better way to express this....ah ha ok lol I guess i'd say. A completely self-oriented self-serving purpose seems too selfish for me. I tend to search for a meaning a purpose etc. that it grounded in something other than myself. Something more eternal than my own individual take on the human condition.
 

Bamboo

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
2,689
MBTI Type
XXFP
If there is no god of any kind where do we (mankind) ascertain a means of objective morality and intrinsic value of human life?

Without god there isn't objective morality or intrinsic value of human life, only our own arrogance to accept existing or create new and enforce those beliefs in our cultures, societies, and environments.

Personally I don't believe in the intrinsic value of human life (or of anything that comes to mind, really).
 
Top