Can’t There Be Morality Without God?

The problem of morality without God once again.

[juuzousuzuya]

The ignorance in the internets long history of comments.
Can not begin to rival the attempt at objecting to these videos

[kaugh]

Stop ignoring consciousness! It is the fundamental element in athiest morality. Sam Harris is talking about "the well-being of conscious creatures" spoiler alert: **that includes dolphins**

[anthonymitchell]

Cart Before The Horse fallacy.

You have to prove your God first before you can claim is responsible for anything. You are shooting an arrow and then drawing a target around it.

Turek's line of reasoning is by definition irrational.

[somerandom]

Because there has to be? is that really the best answer you could come up with?
Not very

[baruchspinoza]

I sensed that stealing, killing, lying and hurting animals was wrong way before I heard or read any commandments.
And the commandments don’t even mention the last one.

[inotterwords]

1:00 - "If it's just human beings coming up with these standards, that's not objective, that's just personal opinion."

In the first place, that's not necessarily true: many things that humans "come up with" (like math) are objective.
In the second place, appealing to gods or angels as our source of morality doesn't address the problem of subjectivity. If morality is rooted in a god (i.e., a subject), then it is subjective.

[jillum]

Why is it about pleasing some god? Why isn’t it about pleasing Satan? Why isn’t it about trying to piss some god off? Why is it about trying to go to heaven, why isn’t it about trying to go to hell? The problem raised isn’t solved. The subjective desire to use a definition or standard might be subjective ... but so is yours. So why are you complaining? It’s your opinion that you wanna make a god happy and go to heaven. That’s just your subjective opinion. I don’t wanna do that. And why are you raising this? Where else would you waise this? “We have objective standard for health.” “But why would I wanna be healthy?” Would you ever say that as a response about the standards we have for health? You know we have objective standards for how to cross an ocean safely, right? We can do measurements of length, speed, temperatures, what have you. We can examine this question objectively. Would you ever respond by saying “But why would I wanna cross an ocean?!?” Doesn’t matter. We aren’t talking about the motivation to do it. We are talking about the standard. The standard is objective. So it is with morality, being a study of real world group mechanics and the real world effects that real world actions have on real world members of those groups, and it’s a study of the way we build a happy healthy cooperative society. That’s objective.

But! And this is critical!!! It’s far worse than that. Because as I said; the desire to follow a standard might be subjective, but it doesn’t follow from that that the standard is then also subjective. Here it isn’t. But in theism it is. All you have is the subjective opinionated likes and dislikes of some subjective personal thinking feeling being. ALL you have is a god that says “I don’t like that”. And _THAT_ is definitely subjective. You’re trying to get to objectivity by pointing to the desires of a subject. The bible, even, is absolutely clear that this is how it is. Haven’t you read it? It says again and again and again, when explaining “why” the laws are what they are, that this is “an abomination onto God” or that is “pleasing to God” or this is “detestable to God”. This is all just God’s opinion. And we don’t care about that. As you just explicitly said. So you’re complaining something you wouldn’t complain about in any other area, including your own where it fits too ... and then you ignore that you defend a subjective opinionated system where we defend an objective one.

I think you wanna be careful, saying that the nazis worked contrary to God’s nature, when the god you worship has a favorite chosen people, and he asked them to slaughter their way through the entire OT, killing women and children and infants and everyone in several entire cities. And when he's in the habit of killing off the people he don't really like, in the flood and in Lot's city and what have you (It's good to have omniscience and omnipotence when you aren't going to use it but you're just going to give up and do away with the problem entirely in stead of fixing it). Which – if you acknowledge that – shows further that you’re the relativist: You think that there’s some god that gets to do this and that, but it wouldn’t be moral for people to do them. God can flood the entire planet and kill all the firstborns of Egypt, and he can order several entire cities destroyed, kids and infants and all ... but you can’t; it would be wrong for you to do that. So you are advocating for a relative moral system where some rules apply to this god that don’t apply to you. You are then _not_ advocating that this god’s nature is the standard for what’s good and moral for people to do ... if you’re saying that we can’t do what God gets to do. And if you’re saying “Oh, but that was the OT”, then you’re for relative morality too, advocating that there are some standards for some societies and others for others. None of what you actually believe solves _any_ of the problems you raise, and it makes all of them far far far worse.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong and if you think you get to do as God does and if you think you get to slaughter your way through several entire cities, kids and all. Or if you get to drown people. Or what have you.

[dschmidt]

love how all the clips where people agree at the end are included, but if there is any rebuttal or disagreement on the point, it immediately cuts to the outro after Frank's comments. disingenuous much?

[Matthew_Holton]

Morality with God is more of a problem, look up Euthyphro Dilemma.

[alanbaraka]

Morality is subjective.  For example murder is normally wrong but if done in self defense can depending on the circumstances be ok.  It depends on the present conditions.  Drawing morality from the god of the bible is, forgive me, a poor way to judge something.  First, the bible doesn't account for all conditions in all circumstances so you can't use it for everything.  Second, the bible supports things such as slavery and genocide.  Hitler had slave workers and performed genocide.  So your "standard beyond humanity" apparently agrees with Hitler.

[sEEKllsevN]

I like that mmf shirt. Great christian band

[brit]

Here we go again, the Christian god has committed more sin and seen the slaughter of billions of his children.
SO WHAT THE HELL DOES HE KNOW ABOUT MORALITY.
Remember that your god RECOMMENDS THE STONING TO DEATH OF CHILDREN FOR FAILING TO OBEY THEIR PARENTS.
That is just a start there are thousands of other examples of the MORALITY OF THE VILE, FOUL, STINKING CHRISTIAN GOD.
Would you ask Hitler for advice on MORALITY.

[zipzorp]

He is incorrect when he states that "there's got to be a standard beyond humanity". This is a personal desire of his, nothing more. There's the way he wishes things to be, and the way that they are. The fact remains that all that we have for moral standards are the best ones that we can come up with as humans. The moral standards of specific groups of people will thrive over others for a variety of reasons, mainly a measurable and demonstrable success rate. This guys mind is trapped in a box of religion.

[mikeramos]

There cannot be objective morality without God.

[MP-ycou]

I'm so mindblown. This video said it was uploaded 32 minutes ago but I see comments from days ago.

[doctorwebman]

Morality and ethics are effectually based on empathy and a sense of fairness, which evolution caused us to have as a matter of survival of the fittest. A social species that cares for one another will work together to survive, and is thus more fit for survival. No God is needed in order for human morality to exist, or to be what it is. If murder is not wrong without God, then murder is not inherently wrong in and of itself, otherwise it would still be wrong even if God never existed to agree with us that it is. People who need an objective justification for hating murder are strange people indeed, as they must lack empathy in order to ask, "Why should I care?" whenever a moral argument is made against it. Murder is wrong, because of love (subjective), not because 1+1=2 (objective). 'Objective' does not mean 'made up out of thin air by God for emotional reasons'. As it is, if your argument is that God must exist, because atheists share morality with Christians, then your logic is not sound, eespecially since the Bible borrowed from other moralities when it said, "Do not commit murder." The preacher doesn't seem to understand the difference between God's opinion that murder is wrong and 'objective morality'. Empathy has always been a good enough reason for those who have it, so his arguments don't hold water with normal people, only psychopaths who lack empathy, and ask, "Why should I care?" As it is, Christians like this preacher are pretending to have an objective moral reason for why murder is wrong, and don't seem to understand what 'objective' means. God's opinions are no more valid than any of ours, since he just made everything up out of nothing.

[rangariraikunedzimwe]

..and The Word was God
The character of God Is That Standard..

[Kaymen]

Prove that the god in question exists, and that it can account for morality, and then you have justification for asking this question. Until then, it’s a man made label that describes a certain type of behavior.

[Stuffingsalad]

He’s right and also wrong. Yes, the basis for ‘objective morality’ being human flourishing is based on our subjective opinion that it’s important. We need no more. Morality is a human concept regardless.

The funny thing is- Frank doesn’t actually give any way to derive god’s objective moral law- probs cause he doesn’t exist. Where do we derive this objective morality? The bible? That thing that condones slavery, genocide and the death penalty for just about everything? I don’t think so... Not to mention there isn’t any reason I should even believe the bible is the word of god and not just the subjective opinions of bronze aged savages who didn’t know anything about anything.

Is god directly telling u? If u live in the looney bin maybe...

So I ask u theists- can u actually provide a means to derive this objective morality u speak of? One that is consistent. If not- then we have no choice but to rely on our subjective opinions. And will forever because ur sky daddy doesn’t exist.

[Issoirre]

Proposition:

"We can and do have a morality without god, "


ok, Ill buy that. Please tell me what is good behaviour? What is bad behaviour? Why is it good or bad. What the hell does good and bad even mean?
Does complex decision making result from chemical reactions? If so please cite the study that determined that.

There is conclusive evidence that animals think are aware and even self aware, use tools and engage in complex problem solving.Are animals capable of moral or immoral behavior? Is it morally wrong for one raven to steal from another? Is it morally wrong for a raven to steal something you leave in your yard? Is it morally wrong for you to kill a raven? Is it morally wrong for you to take a possession away from your two year old child? Please provide an analysis of your reasons for these questions.

The simple fact is that if there is no God then there is no morality, end of story. It cannot be logically argued that there is. Im fine with that, but be honest and admit it. If there is no God you have no rights (which is what morality is all about) and as long as I am stronger than you or sneaky enough to get away with it I can do anything I want to you, your wife, your children, your mother and father and there is no reason for me not to. Is that the world you want to live in? Seems to me even if there is no God the belief in such a being makes living with each other much much more sanguine :)

By the way expedience, usefulness, utility, et. al. do not equate to morality.

Arguments that attempt to explain morality without God are analogous To some one saying " I dont need air to talk, I dont even believe in air and I can talk just fine" The fact that you can even make the argument defeats your position.


have a great day
Brad