# Help! Can ethics be mandated without religion or other assumptions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2002, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300 "2002-04-24T05:38:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/81 "2002-05-11T09:54:54Z")
—Sort of a “If it feels good, do it” morality, but in a positive light? That’s pretty much how my morality works. I like the feeling I get when I help others, and I feel bad for others if I harm them because I can identifiy with them. I don’t steal from others because I wouldn’t want something stolen from me, and because if I am caught, I could be ostracised, and I am a social creature.---- This might be a good source for a “morality” but it’s not quite there yet. A morality begins with moral values… but there is a next step to it: universalizing these values. I.e., making abstract principles out of them. It’s not enough to say that “I don’t kill because I don’t want to be killed”- it has to be “Killing is wrong” (and perhaps it is considered to be wrong BECAUSE of some permutation of the golden rule) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/82 "2002-05-11T15:17:46Z")
I am saying that killing is wrong both because I don’t want to be killed _and_ because I truly think that I have no more rights than anyone else. I don’t think there is a “Universal Morality” that guides everyone-it’s more like everyone has their own individual morality that, when combined with the laws and general opinions of our society at large, creates a general “Morality Set” that guides us. The part of the “Morality Set” that says “killing is wrong” is created from both subsets “killing is wrong because I don’t want to be killed and I empathize with my fellow human” _and_ “killing is wrong because I follow a set of rules, set down by the god I believe in, that say so” Both of these answers are valid because they fall into the general “killing is wrong” subset of the “Morality Set.” Now, another society may have a diferent “Morality Set” because the the ingredients for their set may be different-i.e. a different set of rules from a different god and/or different personal morals created by circumstances unique to that society. When thes subsets are combined a valid, but different, “Morality Set” is created. IMHO, there is no such thing as a universal morality. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/83 "2002-05-11T19:57:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hoopy Frood \* > First of all the whole thing of eternal torment has been debated multiple times over in these forums. Many Christians do not believe in an everlasting Hell, and many don’t believe in a suffering Hell, and these concepts aren’t mutually exclusive, so many don’t believe in either concept. But this belies your whole point. If you claim that morality is a mandate from God, yet you allow yourself to pick and choose among all of the things God supposedly said, then how is it a mandate? If God says there is a hell, but you believe that He “didn’t really mean it”, or commanded death to adulterers, but you believe that there were some qualifications to that rule that God left out, then you are admitting that God-based morality is NOT set in stone. What’s really going on is that people use their human ability to reason, and tell themselves “I know it’s in the Bible, but that just doesn’t seem right”. And unless I missed it, I’m still waiting for anyone in the “God-given morals” camp to post an example of where God commands us to be nice to animals. I’m not saying He didn’t, but I would be curious to know where in the Bible that occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/84 "2002-05-11T22:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I’m not. The whole point is that we are discussing whether, in addition to the world we see around us, god’s existing or not existing could make a difference to what was and was not moral. We aren’t assuming any particular state of god. Maybe this is what you are discussing, but it doesn’t make any sense. If you are discussing whether or not the sudden appearance of god in a world he did not create would affect morality, have fun, but no one here subscribes to that belief. I ask again, how can you judge the effects of god’s existence without assuming any particular state of god? You are saying that god may not exist, so what are his contributions? Well, then there are going to be two views of his contributions, one for if he exists, one for if he does not. > [@](#): > > Look, next time, before you insult me, try not to make accusations that are demonstrably wrong. You’re the one confused about the subject here, not I. > [@](#): > > We are here. Looking at this reality. We assert that there are valid and ultimate morals (and grant this assumption). Given this, does it matter to WHAT those morals are, that God created the world or not? No. End of story. I apologize for being insulting. But look at what you are saying… you agree with me that morals come from the state of reality. Then you say it doesn’t matter where they come from, that the state of reality is unimportant. So where did the morals come from? Are you saying that it is enough that there are morals, and it doesn’t matter that we have no knowledge of reality in order to determine what they are? I am arguing that the existence of god would be one way of finding out enough about reality to judge morality. Maybe you have your own method of perfectly determining the state of reality by yourself, in which case it would not matter to you if god created the world. But until you let everyone in on your secret it will matter to them. > [@](#): > > What mistake? In both your examples you changed things OTHER THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Essentially, you argued: oh, the world where things are radically different… it would be… uh… different… and uh…therefore it’s the existence of god that made all the difference. Actually you have it backward. I said that, if our world was created by god, then any world that was not created by god would be different than ours. And if our world was not created by god, any world that was created by god would be different than ours. You could argue that god is not involved enough in the world for him to make a difference, but the god I am talking about, and the gods most people believe in, are. > [@](#): > > Now, yes, a god could have created people, created them with the ability to kill and be killed, and created them with the feeling of not liking it very much. In this sense, god determines what is and is not moral. But once made in a certain way, it is not god’s existence or will that MAKES things moral: it is the nature of the moral beings themselves. This is almost exactly what I have been saying, so I am glad we agree! Although you still tend to underestimate the contributions of god toward our nature… if he created us, it was a TOTAL contribution. > [@](#): > > Originally, what we were discussing is whether things are right and wrong JUST BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO. Now, you seem to agree with me that this is not the case (do you agree with me that it’s actually not just wrong, but unintelligible nonsense?). In this case, the question we have confronted is whether or not our moral senses and beliefs mandate or require the existence of a god to explain them. And again, my answer is no. In every one of your posts you accuse me of saying things are right or wrong because god says so, and in every one of my posts I tell you that I never said that and never believed it. Obviously it is a view you like to argue against 🙂 The question is not whether our beliefs require god… I have already said that I believe to mandate morals what you need is some religion or some assumption that tells you about the state of reality. (note that this is only to mandate morals, you can of course have morals without any opinion on the state of reality) > [@](#): > > You seem to want to argue that god’s existence would be important to what is and is not moral… but you can’t seem to ground this argument on anything but the subterfuge of two DIFFERENT hypothetical realities, when the plain fact of the matter is that we are considering the potential hypothetical contribution of god, not the character of moral beings in this reality. If all you want to do is argue that in different realities, things would be different… well I leave you to your empty tautologies. I am discussing two hypothetical realities, because I do not know which one is true, and I do not want to act as though I do. Apparently you do know. And I am not just saying “things would be different” in different realities. I am considering the potential hypothetical contribution of god, and whether he exists or not has a bearing on his contribution. If god created everything, then it was a total contribution. Just because you get your morals from the state of reality, does not mean you can discount the contribution of the creator of that reality. If god does not exist, then there are many other religions and assumptions you could go to to get an idea of the state of reality and mandate morals. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/85 "2002-05-11T23:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > If the Christian god does not exist, we then have to consider the morals created by the Roman gods. If the Roman gods do not exist, we then have to consider the morals created by the Greek gods. If the Greek gods do not exist, we then have to consider the morals created by the IPU, and so on and so on ad nauseum ad infinitum. Either the existence or non-existence of each of the god-pantheons must make a difference, or we must consider the possibility that the gods do not matter at all. Man must take responsibility for the creation of morals, since all evidence points to man as the creator of morals. The existence of any of the “god-pantheons” would indeed make a difference, to the extent that they were involved in the creation of the world and us. It is not a valid argument to say that just because there are so many none of them matter. Man has the responsibility not to create morals out of thin air, but to determine what is moral, and to do that we need to know what things, in fact, ARE. The existence of any “god-pantheon”, if it shows us what we are, would be important. > [@](#): > > By “your particular sect of Christianity” I was refering to the Christianity you refered to in your post, not your particular beliefs, and I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. OK… although I still don’t see why you jumped to the conclusion it was the only religion I knew. My post would have gotten rather long if I had tried to include the names of every religion that ever existed. Hopefully this post, using your god-pantheon term, is more acceptable to you. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/86 "2002-05-11T23:14:27Z")
How different _are_ the morality sets when jumping from god-pantheon to god-pantheon? Are there any major religions that don’t have the basics in them, or have basics that are different and in opposition to the ones we currently hold? These basics, as I see them, are: Respect those above you Take care of those below you Do not steal Do not hurt Have a good time Show others a good time Are there religions that preach against these basic moral tenets? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/87 "2002-05-11T23:40:02Z")
So … Are our moral codes (to murder is bad, etc) an arbitrary result of evolution and socialization only worth following because doing so makes us feel good about ourselves or because they are in our best long-term interest, and we live a reality of moral relativism … or Are these moral codes absolutes, universals, Good and Evil with the capitals in place, true whether an individual or a society believes in them or not? I logically think that I should believe the former, but in actuality believe the latter, and such belief mandates, IMHO, theism. Not God on the throne or God who even gives a shit or God who will dole out rewards and punishments, but some absolute Right and Wrong in the Universe that exists, well, universally, and beyond our understanding. I just could not stand to believe the logical consequences of the former: Hitler’s values would’ve been “right” if most people left alive espoused them. So, I accept “Right” and “Wrong” without evidence, in spite of evidence to the contrary in fact. I don’t know if I’m correct, part of me suspects that I’m not, but I know that I need to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/88 "2002-05-12T07:00:51Z")
—I am saying that killing is wrong both because I don’t want to be killed and because I truly think that I have no more rights than anyone else. I don’t think there is a “Universal Morality” that guides everyone— I wasn’t saying that there necessarily IS a universal morality. However, it remains that a “morality” involves a universalization of some value: i.e. taking moral principles out of the specific and into the abstract. Otherwise, what we would be talking about wouldn’t be morality, but more of a personal ethic. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/89 "2002-05-12T07:27:55Z")
—I ask again, how can you judge the effects of god’s existence without assuming any particular state of god?— We can assume almost ANY state of god, that’s the point. The point is whether or not, if we suddenly came to have knowledge that god existed, this would or could have any alteration on what we know is and is not moral. —You are saying that god may not exist, so what are his contributions? Well, then there are going to be two views of his contributions, one for if he exists, one for if he does not.— The question is: can he HAVE any contributions, once a particular state of the world is a given? —But look at what you are saying… you agree with me that morals come from the state of reality. Then you say it doesn’t matter where they come from, that the state of reality is unimportant.— This is simply not what I said. You and I seem to agree that the state of reality is the foundation of morals. This seems, to me, to be the end of the discussion. Whether or not there is a god or not, we still face the same situation with regards to morals. And the question of whether there is a god or not does not impact this (whether there are morals or not, and what they are) in the least. If there is a god, it could well help us with our moral knowledge, at the very least because a greater capacity for more moral acts upon greater capacity of empirical knowledge. But the question of “is there a god or not” is not relevant to the question of “are there moral rights and wrongs, and what are they.” The second question can be answered entirely in isolation from the first: the first not only does not require an answer to answer the second, but it’s answer cannot affect the outcome of the second. —So where did the morals come from?— Arg: you and I already seem to agree that they don’t “come from” period, in the sense that they are not mandated. Rather, they are a function of the sorts of moral interests that beings in this particular reality have. —Are you saying that it is enough that there are morals, and it doesn’t matter that we have no knowledge of reality in order to determine what they are? — No. I am, however, saying that this is a different question. I have said, over and over and over, that if there is a god, it could provide special insight into this reality that would aid our moral understanding. But that is an entirely different question from the one asking whether the discovery that a god created this reality would have any impact on the question of IF there are morals, and WHAT is moral. —I am arguing that the existence of god would be one way of finding out enough about reality to judge morality.— So, as hopefully you have now learned, your insult was premised on the idea that I was disagreeing with this point. If you read my posts, you’ll see that I never disagreed with it at all. But I have pointed out that it is not relevant to the outcomes of those two key questions about morality. Discovering that there was a god could provide an avenue for aiding our moral knowledge (provided that this being shares our moral concerns and wishes to tell us empirical answers!). But then, so could any avenue for increased knowledge about ourselves and this reality. —I said that, if our world was created by god, then any world that was not created by god would be different than ours.— Sorry, but that’s just back to the tautology. To actually examine the question, you need two comparable worlds, not two different worlds. The comparable world to your one with an active god is simply one in which all the substantive “acts” of god upon reality are simply aspects of that reality. —In every one of your posts you accuse me of saying things are right or wrong because god says so, and in every one of my posts I tell you that I never said that and never believed it— For goodness sake, no I didn’t. Are you just skimming over my posts? I was recaping the discussion to give you a better sense of where you came into it, the questions I was responding to before, and the different sorts of questions that we are dealing with now. —I am discussing two hypothetical realities, because I do not know which one is true, and I do not want to act as though I do. Apparently you do know.— No, that is the whole point. But you cannot argue two different realities if you agree that morality arises from the particular character of the moral beings in it. It is an entirely empty comparision, because its comparing apples to oranges: it does not tell you WHAT made the difference. —Just because you get your morals from the state of reality, does not mean you can discount the contribution of the creator of that reality.— Why not? If a god created THIS reality, or if THIS reality is naturalistic, in both cases what is and is not moral is a question whos answer comes straight out of the particular state of reality. The whole point is that the questions “are things moral” and “what things are moral” would have the SAME ANSWERS either way. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/90 "2002-05-12T07:39:40Z")
—Respect those above you Take care of those below you— These two are pretty sloppily formed, because what “above” or “below” mean is unclear. The President may be “above” me in power and age, but that doesn’t mean that I should respect him. Osama Bin Laden may be “below” me in morals, but that doesn’t mean I should aid him. —Are there religions that preach against these basic moral tenets?— I would say that religions that don’t hold most of those sorts of tenets would last very long: they’d be torn apart by derision. However, there’s a difference between preaching something and actually consistently applying them as moral principles. Many religions come by those sorts of moral principles somewhat tangentially, and the result is that they are often not consistent in HOW they are mandated and applied, because they arise out of different sorts of stories that can have different implications in different situations. Likewise, things like “don’t hurt” can, if not further refined lead to completely different moral decisions in the same situation, depending on what the theoretical perception of the situation is. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/91 "2002-05-12T09:27:33Z")
> [@](#): > > We can assume almost ANY state of god, that’s the point. The point is whether or not, if we suddenly came to have knowledge that god existed, this would or could have any alteration on what we know is and is not moral. I think the problem is that we are not even discussing the same question. My answer to the OP was that ethics cannot be mandated without religion or other assumptions, because religion or other assumptions are the only way to know enough about reality to mandate ethics. Along the way your question somehow turned into whether or not suddenly realizing that god exists would alter what we know is moral. I agree with you that suddenly realizing god exists would not change what IS moral, although I do believe that to the extent that it gives us more knowledge about ourselves it could change what WE know is moral. You probably agree with this too. I just think it is more important than you do, because if we were created by god, then religion is the only way to learn many things about ourselves and our world. > [@](#): > > But the question of “is there a god or not” is not relevant to the question of “are there moral rights and wrongs, and what are they.” The second question can be answered entirely in isolation from the first: the first not only does not require an answer to answer the second, but it’s answer cannot affect the outcome of the second. We are definitely discussing different questions, because I agree with this. I never said it was the question of “is there a god or not” that was relevant. I said it was god himself that was relevant! We do not have to know the answer to “is there a god or not” in order for god to be very relevent to the question of “are there moral rights and wrongs, and what are they.” In fact I have a hard time believing that what anyone has been discussing until now is the effects of “is there a god or not” on morality, since that is basically a yes or no question, and it would be extreme oversimplification to reduce religion to “is there a god or not.” > [@](#): > > Why not? If a god created THIS reality, or if THIS reality is naturalistic, in both cases what is and is not moral is a question whos answer comes straight out of the particular state of reality. The whole point is that the questions “are things moral” and “what things are moral” would have the SAME ANSWERS either way. > [@](#): > > To actually examine the question, you need two comparable worlds, not two different worlds. The comparable world to your one with an active god is simply one in which all the substantive “acts” of god upon reality are simply aspects of that reality. Now you seem to be addressing my argument, because you are talking about god himself rather than just the question of if he exists. And here is where I disagree with you. You are saying that since morals come from the state of reality, and the state of reality is a given, god is irrelevent to morality. But if god exists, then god is reality! Your use of comparable worlds is meaningless because god is already an aspect of reality. You can’t compare a world with an active god to one where his acts are simply aspects of reality because in the first world god is reality, so there is no way to duplicate that reality without god. In other words you can’t duplicate god without god. What you are saying is the same as saying you want to compare a rock with a rock that is simply an aspect of reality. It’s still the same rock, so there is nothing to compare. Since there is no comparable world, and since we agree that morality comes from the state of reality, then if god IS the state of reality he helps us determine what is moral. Not by telling us what is moral, but because by knowing him, by knowing reality, we can ourselves determine what is moral. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/92 "2002-05-12T10:08:11Z")
—My answer to the OP was that ethics cannot be mandated without religion or other assumptions, because religion or other assumptions are the only way to know enough about reality to mandate ethics.— I’m not sure what you mean by “religion or other assumptions” or “mandate ethics.” To have any sort of moral sense, we need some understanding of what the general interests of moral beings (that is, those with interests in certain things that could potentially be harmed) are. For instance, in talking about it being wrong to kill, we have to have some sense that there are a class of beings that do not want to be killed. I suppose the assumptions relevant here are the basic assumptions of reality, that we can actually come to know what the moral interests of other beings are. But then most everyone is willing to grant those basic assumptions, because without them, ALL questions become pointless (even “is there a god”). I’m not sure I see what other assumptions are necessary, or why these assumptions are particularly religious or otherwise. —I never said it was the question of “is there a god or not” that was relevant. I said it was god himself that was relevant!— You have just expressed a contradiction. Hopefully, you understand that it is the relevance of the ANSWER to that question that we are discussing, not simply the question itself. —We do not have to know the answer to “is there a god or not” in order for god to be very relevent to the question of “are there moral rights and wrongs, and what are they.”— Maybe you are using a different sense of the word “relevant” here, and that is our problem. I agree that god could be relevant to finding out WHAT is and is not moral, just as would the invention of a machine that could predict the future. But if you are claiming that any god is relevant TO morality itself, then I don’t see how you can support that claim. —You are saying that since morals come from the state of reality, and the state of reality is a given, god is irrelevent to morality. But if god exists, then god is reality!— If you really mean “god is reality,” then you are going to have to explain that one, because as far as I can tell (if I am reading it right), it is a wholly unintelligible claim. Further, it would seem to have no literal implications: all that it changes is the name of the “reality” we are studying. Surely you are not arguing for a purely semantic implication. However, you may mean instead that god is a PART of our reality, which is meaningful, but, I would argue, still doesn’t change the picture: —You can’t compare a world with an active god to one where his acts are simply aspects of reality because in the first world god is reality, so there is no way to duplicate that reality without god. — The acts of god are only relevant inasmuch as they have an consistent effect on the outcome of moral choices made by moral beings (us). But this is just as so as if the reality is such that these consistent effects are present naturally. Again, it is the state of reality, not that it happens to be controlled by a god or not, that makes the difference. We have a reality under consideration (this one). In it, our moral choices have certain consistent affects on other moral beings. Whether these effects are in part due to consistent actions made by a god or not, the fact remains that it is the values of moral beings combined the nature of these effects from which arise moral principles. —Not by telling us what is moral, but because by knowing him, by knowing reality, we can ourselves determine what is moral.— However, this is not necessary. Perhaps this point will clarify things: were this god unwilling to tell us what we need to know, this in itself would not change the fact of whether some things are moral and some things are not, and what things. Further, were it possible to discover the necessary things about reality via other means (and, I would argue, the sorts of things necessary to discover to lay down basic moral principles are fairly easy to identify), that would be just as good. Ultimately, when we consider a situation from a moral standpoint, we are considering the various interests involved. Perhaps you can explain how the existence of god would be a relevant consideration that impacts on the question of whether a doctor should break confidentiality if he fears a patient might pose a threat to others. ---
**Author:** ![H.Miller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/4da419/32.png) [@H.Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/H.Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/93 "2002-05-12T21:38:35Z")
“Socio-biological factors don’t mean anything when it comes to pursuit of one’s pleasure”. Where in your religious pantheon of tenets did you find this gem? Let’s get flagrant: -you ain’t “socio” if you ain’t alive. -you ain’t alive unless you’re biological. -you ain’t either unless you eat. Now, try to eat without putting food into your biology. It’s work one way or the other. Now ask “Why should I Work?”. Socio ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/94 "2002-05-13T05:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > The acts of god are only relevant inasmuch as they have an consistent effect on the outcome of moral choices made by moral beings (us). Wow! This is what I have been saying. ---
**Author:** ![Sebhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@Sebhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sebhal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/95 "2002-05-13T12:25:35Z")
Has anyone read “Godless Morality: Taking the Religion Out of Ethics”? Written by an English bishop (Richard Holloway) it does exactly what several people have said isn’t possible, posits a basis for a moral and ethical system that is not based on religion. It’s the sort of book that I could never have imagined a bishop writing, and is well worth reading. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/96 "2002-05-13T14:14:38Z")
—Wow! This is what I have been saying.— And, as I pointed out, not relevant to the question we were discussing. We live in a world where whatever consistent effects there are are already givens, whether they are the result of a god acting, or not. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/97 "2002-05-13T18:11:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\* Pascal’s Wager isn’t going to impress anyone. The fact is, the bible tells me that because I do not believe, I reject (and I’m a fool, can do no good, etc.). This is a lie about me. End of story. It is nonsense to talk about god “not forcing” me to do anything: I have no knowledge of a god existing telling me to do anything in the first place. Maybe if it was interested in offering things to me, it could do so in a way that wouldn’t involve me making myself a dishonest and morally nihilistic man to believe without good cause (which, in my mind, would be highly immoral, no worse than lying to someone about a car’s brakes having been fixed when I actually have no idea if tey were or not)._\* Ummm…my example was not Pascal’s Wager. Which shows either you’re intentionally trying to make a straw man or you don’t understand Pascal’s Wager. My belief in God stems not from any fear of repercussions in the afterlife, and if you are implying that this is the basis for my faith (as opposed to merely stating why you don’t believe in him) then discussing this further with you isn’t really worth my time. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\*—I see God as someone who is there to remind of the dangers and ultimately self-destroying results of a purely “me” based morality.— > > As I noted, I don’t see any problem with this view. And there cannot be such a thing as a “me” based morality: it wouldn’t BE a morality if it had special conditions for one particular person. \*\* You’re right, I should have replaced “morality” with “ethics.” Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/98 "2002-05-13T18:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > > Are our moral codes (to murder is bad, etc) an arbitrary result of evolution and socialization only worth following because doing so makes us feel good about ourselves or because they are in our best long-term interest, and we live a reality of moral relativism … > > or > > Are these moral codes absolutes, universals, Good and Evil with the capitals in place, true whether an individual or a society believes in them or not? > > I logically think that I should believe the former, but in actuality believe the latter Do you think that what you “want” to believe has any bearing on reality? > [@](#): > > , and such belief mandates, IMHO, theism. Not God on the throne or God who even gives a shit or God who will dole out rewards and punishments, but some absolute Right and Wrong in the Universe that exists, well, universally, and beyond our understanding. > > I just could not stand to believe the logical consequences of the former: Hitler’s values would’ve been “right” if most people left alive espoused them. But you are applying your logical consequences to a non-existent, hypothetical situation. One could just as easily say "Hitler’s values would’ve been “right” if God espoused them. So what? The fact is that we as humans DO have a sense of right and wrong, even though we frequently do wrong things. I don’t see where God is a necessary part of the equation. > [@](#): > > So, I accept “Right” and “Wrong” without evidence, in spite of evidence to the contrary in fact. I don’t know if I’m correct, part of me suspects that I’m not, but I know that I need to believe it. To me, it seems rather obvious that murdering 6 million Jews was Wrong (capital W), because they didn’t want to die, and it caused great pain to them and everyone else who was affected by their deaths. Isn’t that a good enough reason? ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/99 "2002-05-13T20:35:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*And unless I missed it, I’m still waiting for anyone in the “God-given morals” camp to post an example of where God commands us to be nice to animals. I’m not saying He didn’t, but I would be curious to know where in the Bible that occurs. \*\* Verses taken from Revised Standard Version: > [@](#): > Deuteronomy 25:4 > [@](#): > > You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain. Proverbs 12:10 > [@](#): > > A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. Exodus 23:10-12 > [@](#): > > For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild beasts may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard. Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your ass may have rest, and the son of your bondmaid, and the alien, may be refreshed. Numbers 22:27-33 > [@](#): > > When the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the ass with his staff. Then the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam said to the ass, “Because you have made sport of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” And the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your ass, upon which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face. And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why have you struck your ass these three times? Behold, I have come forth to withstand you, because your way is perverse before me; and the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have slain you and let her live.” Deuteronomy 22:1-4, 6-7, 10 > [@](#): > > You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and withhold your help from them; you shall take them back to your brother. And if he is not near you, or if you do not know him, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. And so you shall do with his ass; so you shall do with his garment; so you shall do with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he loses and you find; you may not withhold your help. You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and withhold your help from them; you shall help him to lift them up again. If you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself; that it may go well with you, and that you may live long. You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. Exodus 20:10 > [@](#): > > but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; Exodus 23:5 > [@](#): > > If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up. The main two parts of the law that are explicitly pro animal is the prohibition of unequal yoking of animals and the muzzling of animals. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2002, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300/100 "2002-05-13T21:20:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hoopy Frood \* > […] > The main two parts of the law that are explicitly pro animal is the prohibition of unequal yoking of animals and the muzzling of animals. Good answer - thanks, Hoopy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-can-ethics-be-mandated-without-religion-or-other-assumptions/105300.md?page=6)