Can morality be objective without the existence of God?

Question

If you base it on something else, what is it, and why.

I disagree that morality can be based on doing things that doesn't hurt other people. If someone wants to die and you help them by putting a bullet in their head at their wishes and happiness, it is still wrong to me.

Answer 1

No, not at all.

People can invent things as these answers have shown but the basis for inventing them is self interest in some form, either tangible benefits or in the form of good feelings. But self interest is not an acceptable basis for morality, after all, why should justice for me depend upon how others feel about it?

Answer 2

We did the contractarian theory of morality in TAB last year. Basicly it says for for society to function people need to have a sense of security and a perception of the future which promotes contructive and progressive thinking and action.
The idea is that there is an unwritten social contract among members of society that says you will honour your word, not endanger someones life etc. The point is that if i dont do it then you have to promise not to do it either. so by acting responsibly i am ensuring my own survival. Also the other theory we discussed was that treating people badly or acting in a way that harms others increases the likelyhood of such reciprocation. So its in your own intrest to not act as such

Then the lecturer gave an example:
What if prostitution was legal and the industry was both regulated and safe and all particiupants were willing? what would then make it wrong? the answer is that it probably only has its roots as being wrong because of religion and such so in the end some kinds of morality do come from religion but for the most part poeple observe decent behaviours and ethics because it is the only way to progress and develop as a person or society.

Answer 3

Not sure what you can base it on.. people do good things and bad things because of a reward or punishment situation within a religious framework. There may be bad people within the group but the laws are still a constant.

Society does reward and punish, too, but if the society is immoral then what is there that stops a person from doing bad things?
I don't think I could be an atheist; I just don't have that much faith in a society that constantly changes the rules every few years.

Answer 4

Part of the reason for so many differences of opinion here is because we define "morality" so many different ways.

I once heard someone say, everyone wants morals, but who's morals? What is acceptable to one person is too conservative or too liberal for another person.

So, because each person defines morals differently, morality definitely can be objective without the existence of God.

As far as my basis for morals, I look at the law that Jesus taught us. The Golden Rule stems from the Bible (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). To me, that rule is the ultimate in morality.

Answer 5

I think it's easy to base morality off of just how a particular course of action affects others. To be 'moral', in that sense, is to not hurt others and, in fact, to make others happy. Therefore, stealing from someone is hurting them and bad, and so on. I'm a religious person but when I face a moral dilemma, I consider how my decisions will affect others rather than picking up a bible and thumbing through it to find an answer. Personally, I believe God wants us to be kind to everyone, regardless of whether they share our beliefs or not, so it goes hand-in-hand for me, really.

Answer 6

It has a better chance of being objective without God, because perceptions of God(s) tend to be very subjective between people and groups of people.

You have to start with agreed values, such as the idea that morality comprises those laws which maximise human happiness, but it is possible to argue rationally and objectively from there.

God or gods tend to get in the way, because much of religious morality is highly specific to times and places and cultures. And when you have lots of people proposing different ideas simply on the basis of "faith" then you end up with irreconcilable relativism.

Answer 7

Either there is a greater power than man, or there is not.
If God exists, and He created the moral code, then we should abide by it.
If God does not, then it is not possible to create a morality with which all will agree. You can try as a group to force it on the individual, but then the individual complains that his rights are being repressed.
A government is not greater than man...it cannot be, for it is created by man. Nothing can be greater than its creator.

If you base your own morals on something, then it is ~subjective~, not ~objective~. You cannot have objective morality without a higher power.

Answer 8

yes of course start with the right to life and follow with justice and honor based on that which furthers life rather than destroys it . justice is based on ethics a morality without the need of a god. But I'll be the judge of that .

Answer 9

Morality should be based on common sense--don't harm others as you know you would not like to be harmed--it's not rocket science.Unfortunately most of the Biblical laws on morality have passed their use-by date--for instance no-one would seriously consider stoning their teenage son or daughter to death for back-answering them--nor would any Church Pastor consider shaving off the hair of any Christian women who didn't wear a veil to cover her head.

Answer 10

No, I doubt it. Morality needs a goal that is real and true in order to maintain morale. Humanists can't offer a real goal, only theories. A fragmented soul will have more trouble being moral because it will be frustrated.