Morality or Obedience?

[Kbertsche]

That's called a counter-possible. Being a Christian, if God didn't exist, I wouldn't exist. If I don't exist, I can't hold any morals, can I?

Exactly. As I’ve said before, asking “if God didn’t exist, how would you behave?” is somewhat like asking “if there were no electromagnetic force, how would you behave?” With no electromagnetic force, there would be no chemical reactions and no life as we know it. Both questions are nonsensical.

[Jedidiah]

God doesn’t exist and yet you do exist so your morality, whilst attributed by you to “God”, is in fact based upon a different source.

Baseless assertion unsupported by evidence.

[carpedm9587]

Many theists here argue that morality is objective, that god is the bases of morality. So my question to them, i.e. to you theists, do you consider yourself to be moral beings, or are you just obeying what you believe to be devine laws? In other words, if God did not exist would you cease to live according to the morals that you now hold to?

So, Lawrence Kolberg proposed six stages of moral development, beginning with "avoiding punishment" (the most juvenile or undeveloped level) and continuing to "universal ethical principles" (the most mature level). The theist will see the "universal" ethical principles as those grounded in the principles established by their god, and the atheist will see "universal" ethical principles as those commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

Either way, it is my experience that people can be anywhere along that spectrum, regardless of their theistic beliefs. I have encountered Christian's whose moral choices are based on "avoiding punishment or securing reward" (the lowest moral development level) and Christians whose moral action is conscience and "right for it's own sake" - the highest level. Likewise, I have encountered atheists whose moral action is rooted in fear of punishment or hope for reward, and those who act in adherence with their moral code simply because it is the right thing to do.

It does not seem to me that acting morally is significantly impacted by theistic or atheistic beliefs.

[Jedidiah]

So, Lawrence Kolberg proposed six stages of moral development, beginning with "avoiding punishment" (the most juvenile or undeveloped level) and continuing to "universal ethical principles" (the most mature level). The theist will see the "universal" ethical principles as those grounded in the principles established by their god, and the atheist will see "universal" ethical principles as those commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

Either way, it is my experience that people can be anywhere along that spectrum, regardless of their theistic beliefs. I have encountered Christian's whose moral choices are based on "avoiding punishment or securing reward" (the lowest moral development level) and Christians whose moral action is conscience and "right for it's own sake" - the highest level. Likewise, I have encountered atheists whose moral action is rooted in fear of punishment or hope for reward, and those who act in adherence with their moral code simply because it is the right thing to do.

It does not seem to me that acting morally is significantly impacted by theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Sad but true to a far too large degree.

[Roy]

That's called a counter-possible. Being a Christian, if God didn't exist, I wouldn't exist.

Isn't it amazing how all the millions of people who belong to other religions incompatible with yours continue to exist even though their deities do not?

Or do you think that Vishnu, Ptah, Mbombo, Makemake, Kon-Tiki and many other deities exist alongside your own?

You being wrong is not a counter-possible.

[JonathanL]

Isn't it amazing how all the millions of people who belong to other religions incompatible with yours continue to exist even though their deities do not?

Or do you think that Vishnu, Ptah, Mbombo, Makemake, Kon-Tiki and many other deities exist alongside your own?

You being wrong is not a counter-possible.

His point was that he doesn't believe that a reality where God doesn't exist is possible, not that only he himself (or only those who believe in the [Christian] God) wouldn't exist if God wasn't real. To him (and me as well) JimL's question is like asking if he'd cease to live according to the morals he holds to now if nothing at all existed in the first place.

[JimL]

So, Lawrence Kolberg proposed six stages of moral development, beginning with "avoiding punishment" (the most juvenile or undeveloped level) and continuing to "universal ethical principles" (the most mature level). The theist will see the "universal" ethical principles as those grounded in the principles established by their god, and the atheist will see "universal" ethical principles as those commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

Either way, it is my experience that people can be anywhere along that spectrum, regardless of their theistic beliefs. I have encountered Christian's whose moral choices are based on "avoiding punishment or securing reward" (the lowest moral development level) and Christians whose moral action is conscience and "right for it's own sake" - the highest level. Likewise, I have encountered atheists whose moral action is rooted in fear of punishment or hope for reward, and those who act in adherence with their moral code simply because it is the right thing to do.

It does not seem to me that acting morally is significantly impacted by theistic or atheistic beliefs.

I think that I agree to a point, but I must say, I have asked this of christians here on tweb before who have answered by saying "if there is no god, if there are no ultimate consequences for my actions, then why should I care about a moral code?" What are universal ethical principles they would say, if the violation of those principles are not objectively and divinely consequential to themselves? Why should morals matter?

[Roy]

His point was that he doesn't believe that a reality where God doesn't exist is possible, not that only he himself (or only those who believe in the [Christian] God) wouldn't exist if God wasn't real. To him (and me as well) JimL's question is like asking if he'd cease to live according to the morals he holds to now if nothing at all existed in the first place.

I know what his point was, and he (and you) are mistaken - Jim's question is not like that.

Jim wasn't asking whether his morals would remain unchanged if nothing existed. That would be ridiculous.

Jim was asking whether his morals would remain unchanged if his views were wrong and the world existed without 'God'.

He may think that isn't possible, but there are plenty of people who do think that is possible, and plenty more who think the world exists courtesy of a god very different from his own. It's the height of arrogance for him (and you) to not be capable of even considering the possibility that your worldview is erroneous.

[Roy]

I think that I agree to a point, but I must say, I have asked this of christians here on tweb before who have answered by saying "if there is no god, if there are no ultimate consequences for my actions, then why should I care about a moral code?"

I'm no longer surprised by many Xtians' inability to evaluate any worldview other than their own.

[Sparko]

What a cop-out. How about addressing the issue.

but you just confirmed what I have been saying!

[carpedm9587]

I think that I agree to a point, but I must say, I have asked this of christians here on tweb before who have answered by saying "if there is no god, if there are no ultimate consequences for my actions, then why should I care about a moral code?" What are universal ethical principles they would say, if the violation of those principles are not objectively and divinely consequential to themselves? Why should morals matter?

The reason we have moral codes is to separate actions into "ought do" and "ought not do." Unlike action choices that have to do with "will I hurt myself if I do this" or "will I get my work done if I di this," they are focused on maintaining a functional and stable community - which could be a family, a neighborhood, a religious group, a social club, or any other place where people congregate. They encode our personal and social behavior norms.

[Tassman]

but you just confirmed what I have been saying!

It is the societies that decide what are acceptable or unacceptable behaviours and their moral value. There is no other source. If you think there is then you need to make a case as to what is the "other source".

[Sparko]

It is the societies that decide what are acceptable or unacceptable behaviours and their moral value. There is no other source. If you think there is then you need to make a case as to what is the "other source".

I already did!

[JimL]

The reason we have moral codes is to separate actions into "ought do" and "ought not do." Unlike action choices that have to do with "will I hurt myself if I do this" or "will I get my work done if I di this," they are focused on maintaining a functional and stable community - which could be a family, a neighborhood, a religious group, a social club, or any other place where people congregate. They encode our personal and social behavior norms.

Not sure what you're trying to suggest here carpedm9587. I agree we have moral codes for functional reasons, but there is no objective law out there, in my opinion, that makes murder say, a sin.

[carpedm9587]

Not sure what you're trying to suggest here carpedm9587. I agree we have moral codes for functional reasons, but there is no objective law out there, in my opinion, that makes murder say, a sin.

Agreed. I was not suggesting the existence of a moral universal or absolute code.