Morality- god given or human construct?

[afleitch]

Read this first; the statements come at the end

There are many people of different faiths who believe, ultimately that morals derive from god, that morals are self contained within scripture and those who do not believe in God therefore are not moral. But by turning this statement around, you could ask, why do those who are religious follow scripture based ‘morals’ other than through a desire to ‘please’ or at least sate God and therefore gain personal reward? In other words, do they do so for selfish reasons because of a belief in a deity who has control over the destiny of someone after death? Someone who is atheist would expect no reward and does not believe in a god or any supernatural controlling his or her destiny.

In short, is a selfless act by someone who is religious actually a selfish act because of the expectancy that such acts will be rewarded after death, yet a selfless act by an atheist is a purely selfless act because no such reward is expected; it is simply an act of human kindness or compassion? Likewise does someone who is religious refrain from acting in a way he sees as ‘immoral’ because scripture says so (and he therefore doesn’t want punishment after death; he does so though fear) Whereas an atheist who does not pay attention to any scripture chooses not to do something based on reason and not on fear?

Now someone who is religious could say; ‘I do it not out of fear but out of love’; but again he would be doing so in order to prove that he ‘follows’ his deity; is obedient and should be rewarded (or at least not punished) for doing so.

It's not what I believe, but it is an interesting argument.

There are certain acts that are seen as ‘wrong’ in almost every culture whether religious or not, the simplest of which is the act of murder. Now what constitutes murder is debatable, and there are debates whether or not commiting murder is always necessarily wrong or immoral on a situation by situation basis but on the whole it is generally agreed that murder is in most cases wrong.

So I put to you these statements. I’ve tried to keep them as simple as possible!

A. ‘There are no morals without God and those who do not believe in God are not moral. An atheist, who by definition is not moral believes murder to be ‘wrong’, therefore the act of murder is not a moral issue if someone who is moral(religious) and someone who is not moral(atheist) both believe it to be wrong.’

B. ‘There are no morals without God but those who do not believe in God are still moral as morality is universal. The fact both agree that the act of murder is wrong, while disagreeing about the existence of a God shows that murder is a moral issue’

C. ‘There are morals regardless of the existence of god as morals are methods of human conduct without any divine inspiration. What is deemed moral or immoral changes as society progesses and murder, at present, remains a moral issue because humans have made it so’

D. ‘There is no god. There may not even be morals, ‘Morals’ contained within scripture that contradict normal human conduct are constructed fallacies that should be discarded. Therefore the athiest is more moral than someone who is religious as they do not follow these 'constructed fallacies' ’

[Gabu]

I think C is closest to what I believe.  I didn't need the Bible to tell me that killing my neighbor and then stealing his possessions is a bad idea.  It's just a blatantly obvious notion that all people would need to take into account in order for any civilization to function without devolving into a free-for-all bloodbath.  I do things that people would consider to be moral because I recognize that the world would be a better place if everyone did these things and I want to do my part, not because some deity told me to.  If God wants to reward me for it, that would be an added bonus, but I'm certainly not expecting anything, and that certainly has nothing to do with my motivation.

Of course, religion can definitely be an effective means to the end of becoming a kinder, more caring person, but it's by no means required, nor is it implied that religion would make a person more so.

I do strongly believe in the existence of a god, but I nevertheless don't believe that such a thing would be required for people to act in a moral fashion.  Even if there is no God, that does not preclude us from loving one another and working to make the world a better place for those who must live here.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Human construct

[MasterJedi]

B

[John Dibble]

C is what best fits me.

[Nym90]

I'd agree with C.

I believe God exists, but is not required for the existence of morality.

[Speed of Sound]

C. The God game is ridiculous. If you look hard enough, most of the suff they do isnt even moral by humanity's standards. Humanity will decide its own morals. Morality, of course, is nothing more than 'what a mass majority believe in' anyway.

[A18]

I'm not going to bother reading any of that.

'Morality' is simply one's sense of decency, and is entirely subjective; it exists only in the minds of 'persons' (broadly defined). I believe that God created humans with that trait, but it's clear that it 'exists,' regardless of how we arrived where we are.

There is no objective morality, with or without God.

[David S]

I'd agree with C.

I believe God exists, but is not required for the existence of morality.

^^^^^^

[afleitch]

I'd agree with C.

I believe God exists, but is not required for the existence of morality.

^^^^^^

For the record, thats exactly how I voted.

[Everett]

D.

[David S]

D.

Everett If there are no morals how can we trust each other? Granted some of those morals are law and are enforced by law. But laws only apply if you get caught. Lets say you drop your wallet and you don't notice and no one else is around to see. I could take your wallet and get away with it. I would not do it though because my own morals would pervent me from doing so. I'd give it back to you.

If there are no morals why do people donate money to charity? Why do most people behave honestly most of the time even if there is no cop watching? I say there definitely are morals and happily most people live their lives by their morals. Our world would be a much uglier place if they didn't.

[A18]

She didn't say we could trust each other. I do agree with your broader point about people each having a general sense of decency, but she may be using a different definition of morality.

D is utterly incoherent. I find particularly amusing the fact that it beings by asserting that there may be no morality, and ends by concluding atheists are more moral than religious people. Anyone in the habit of thinking logically should instantly realize one thing: they can't both be right.

Since the only sensible form of moral skepticism is the belief that there is no objective morality, I will proceed upon the assumption that that is what this rather peculiar 'argument' is getting at. Problem is, who is to say some moral code should be discarded if there is no objective morality? Who is to say that a moral code is fallacious, if there is no objective morality?

In addition to this silly thing called 'logic,' the person who wrote that may want to look into 'spelling' and 'grammar.'

[Colin]

C seems the closest. God does not control human morality, society controls human morality. I agree with SoS that alot of God's actions, especially in the Old Testament, aren't moral in human terms so how then could God be a moral being? People may believe that God may or may not exist but this does not weigh upon their belief in morality or in their overall goodness and moral character.

[Frodo]

B. ‘There are no morals without God but those who do not believe in God are still moral as morality is universal. The fact both agree that the act of murder is wrong, while disagreeing about the existence of a God shows that murder is a moral issue’

This best reflects my own personal views on the matter. 

[Beet]

I think what is missing here is a distinction between true morality (the written Word of God as handed down to us from the Bible) and secular morality (a construct endowed into man from God), and a distinction between morality of a more personal type (laziness, gluttony, possibly sexual) and morality of a more social type (empathy with another's pleasure or pain). These are all graspable in some meaningful form, even though their content is very conditional and difficult to parse.

[KEmperor]

None of the above.

[MaC]

C fits best.
A option is for fundie nuts, D option is for opeboists

[dazzleman]

B.

I think all good works are ultimately selfish.  There's nothing wrong with that.  We do good things because we expect, in some way, for good things to happen to us in return.

And the fact is that people who are nice to others are much happier people, so it works.

The ultimately morality is the golden rule.  Treat others as you would have them treat you.  That takes care of most moral questions.

[Dr. Cynic]

C is the option I best agree with.