Morality Without God | Dr. Jordan B Peterson #ethics #theology #god #behaviour #moral

[jamesrodgers]

And if individuals have no intrinsic worth, then the collective has no intrinsic worth. Eight billion zeroes is still zero.

[suxcawks]

I am in no way a Christian but what I've realised is every value I hold is formed in Christian theology and there's no way to escape that.

[EB-qimx]

Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Society prospers most when everyone adheres to this concept. It’s in our best interest to treat others well. That’s the simple truth.

[IDraw]

objective morality does'nt exist. it is all subjective, its just that humans are so similar that it seems like morality is objective.

[bitofwizdomb]

JP, how do you explain the morality of Buddhists and Jains for example ? Neither of which believe in a god yet they are amongst the most loving compassionate kind and virtuous people on the planet. Where do they get their morals from ?

At the root of morality lies the notion of well-being and the mutual understanding of pain and suffering. All living creatures strive to thrive and recoil from pain

[Slydink]

The concept of good and bad is relative and can only be understood in comparison to one another. Therefore, there couldn't have been a notion of something being bad until there was a standard of good to compare it to. Before this standard, everything was simply a part of life, neither good nor bad. It was only after humans started to create and recognize what was good that things began to be judged as bad in comparison. Thus, it can be argued that bad didn't exist until the standard of good was created.

[voodoochild]

This is a thing I strongly disagree on with him. There is nothing that suggests morality comes from some god

[Saif_VAGABOND_Talpur]

In a scenario where an individual lacks belief in the existence of a divine entity to whom they are morally answerable, consequently eliminating the prospect of an afterlife, and when one contemplates the inexorable destiny of eternal oblivion as humanity's ultimate culmination, the query arises as to the purpose of endeavoring to regulate one's conduct within the confines of socially acceptable norms. What significance can morality possibly hold if the ultimate destiny of all entities, encompassing time, space, and matter, culminates in an abyss of perpetual nothingness, obliterating any semblance of meaning? In such a godless cosmos bereft of a divine presence or an afterlife, the very notion of morality and meaning dissipates into a mirage. Subjective morality, a mere illusion, emerges as a construct born from the emotional inclinations inherent to humanity, fostering the development of secular principles under the banner of humanism. Thus, the constructs of human values and societal norms appear devoid of purpose and devoid of meaning. The pursuit of moral conduct aimed at the welfare and cohesion of society appears futile in the absence of divine judgment, especially when considering the ultimate annihilation of said society in the distant future. Secular ethical frameworks, exemplified by utilitarianism and deontology, mirror the assertion made by atheists regarding the man-made nature of religious dogmas. People may espouse the belief that life and consciousness inherently possess value, thereby imbuing significance into the endeavor to enhance well-being while mitigating suffering. Yet, one may ponder the rationale behind such pursuits when suffering remains an inherent, inescapable facet of existence. Many individuals derive purpose from their existence by striving to forge a positive impact upon the world; however, the query lingers - why engage in such endeavors if the cataclysmic eventuality of an asteroid, capable of irrevocably extinguishing the human race, threatens to render one's selfless acts and altruistic deeds utterly devoid of meaning? Ultimately, the enigma of why anything bears significance within a godless universe remains persistently unanswered.

[starbug]

I think if you’re only thinking about yourself, if you hurt someone else, it might make you feel guilty, so that could be a motivator against hurting others maybe? It might even make you hurt yourself

[pipnipipamimmahappunchaol]

Inconvenience tests patience and can produce character can even be the evidence of true love

[apricotAfterglow]

Empathy is like an emotion, and emotions aren't always beneficial to individuals or groups. All our emotions are biological.. If morality isn't objective like it would be with god, then it isn't something you need to follow.

[hearttouchingnasheed-xxey]

I don't want to insult anyone's personal belief. And, this is just what's true, only this statement of “Every human being is created in the image of God, ” don't have the power, let's say, to make someone with more power avoiding a immoral deed, regardless I or anyone else does believe it or not.

[chameleonx]

Nothing has intrinsic worth. All value is subjective. If you don't matter to anyone (including yourself), you don't matter. Period. That's reality.

Humans create value and meaning and apply it to themselves. If you claim that's invalid as a foundation, I can say the same about your hypothesis.

What non-circular reason do you have to value the image of a deity, such that harming something in it's likeness would be "wrong?"

Eventually you have to end in a brute fact. My brute fact doesn't require me to come up with excuses for slavery, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, and all the other atrocities committed, commanded, and condoned by God in the Bible.

[wiyxgyo]

These people who think if you didn’t read your morality in in the Bible or learn it from you parents, you must not have one…It i it’s not as if anyone knows what the objective is or if there is one or not. You have to either posit an external moral. authority based on no reliable evidence (i
even if we assume a creator, how can we really know what if anything it expects us to do), you borrow someone else’s, you go without (if that is even really possible given our socialization and need for one, or you decide for yourself what moral code gives you a sense of integrity and fits the general morality you would like there to be, based on yes a consideration of consequences consistency and a sort of aesthetic sensibility. So those people are choosing a pre-packaged morality from Ming many possible ore-packaged ones, often the one that their family or the majority in society uses, rather that designing one themselves, and that is the only difference.

[tangerinesarebetterthanora]

There is no foundation for morality without God . Empirically you cannot observe morality or immorality. You only have your feeling's that the stimuli evokes and that can vary from person to person. You can only describe actions happening in it.

[jakedark]

You don't need God to punish you if you don't behave well. Misbehaving often has consequences. People trust you less, don't want anything to do with you or punish you. If you are friendly to other people you have a greater chance that people will be friendly in return and accept you. In general, treating someone the way you want to be treated is useful for yourself and others. Some people have less respect for animals because they cannot have a social contract with them. Because they would not be intelligent enough to understand the social contract. But what if someone gets sick or has an accident that results in brain damage? Do you no longer have to treat such a person with respect? The answer to that is quite simple. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Because if you suffer brain damage, you also hope that people will still treat you with respect.

Even if you don't feel empathy for animals, it is still useful to treat animals with respect. Because it is often a signal that a person who treats animals poorly has serious psychological problems. And that person may be unreliable or dangerous. And that is not to anyone's advantage. This alone proves that sane people do not need a god for their morality. Because they understand the consequences of their actions.

The idea of a god has so many things that defy logic. The problem of the omnipotent omniscient God. Who creates imperfect people and then punishes them for their imperfection. While he is omniscient, and therefore knew exactly what they would do. A god who willingly allows terrible things to happen is not a loving God. A God who cannot prevent evil from existing is not an omnipotent God. If he does it to test people, he is not an omniscient God. Because you don't have to test anything if you are omniscient.

Another problem that religion has is that they believe in one creator. Because according to them there has to be a beginning somewhere. Because according to them, something cannot just come from nothing. The big problem then is, how could a God arise from nothing? And why does that perfect god create all kinds of imperfect things? Nothing can come from perfect nothing. So wouldn't that God automatically be imperfect, if he arose from imperfection? Doesn't it make more sense that perfect nothing never existed? So that perfection can never exist. In such a reality you don't need a real beginning or end. Because nothing is perfect and therefore not permanent. This is how things arise from themselves.

[Fryingpan-bo]

I think over time we learned that if we care for one another we can benefit mutually and thats why we now have a sense of ethics with regards to others. All of which can be rationalised down to pure material apart from qualia but thats a seperate issue.

[TMMx]

Why can’t you violate that which is sacred? If you have the power to do so, what does it mean to say that you “can’t” do it?

[barnaclescum]

Wasn’t religion founded upon basic human empathy and morality???? It existed long before the idea of god, even animals display these traits

[fcfanki]

Only religious people can be se inhumane to not see that other humans have intrinsic value without a dictatorial sky guy to punish them, if they mistread them