Morality Without God

[flignar]

I exist. I want to continue existing. So I need safety - controlling the threats around me. So whatever I have that protects me... feeds me, etc., I certainly need to keep...I don't want others to take them. Same for everyone else. They don't want me to take their things. Basic 'law of reciprocity' or 'golden rule' ... do onto others as you would have them do onto you. So if you want to be safe you're safer not taking from others because you don't want them taking from you. That's morality.

[MVPtwinkletoes]

This rant wasn't amazing or anything at all..

[Dandroidanimal]

Oh my god, you teach children? I want to cry.

[natritious1]

@Dandroidanimal those kids must be terrified haha. But whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

[jarak36]

meh, atheistic evolution would have you kill your neighbor, take his steak and procreate with his wife... more offspring, less competition.

Your argument is invalid.

[Tallaias]

@jarak36 you obviously dont understand some of the finer points of the theory of evolution. fine, but you should know what you're talking about before you declare someone's argument invalid on that basis.

[Zepher50]

If we're talking about morality without God can I ask you an honest question? What is good and bad based on?

Your video leads me to beleive good and bad are defined as what one considers to be personally good and bad for themself? Or at least what is best for the civilization as a whole and not the individual.

Couldn't one make an arguement that in either case "good" is most likely not good for everyone any longer. So I would like to know is there any way to have absolute good without god?

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

No, but there is also no absolute good with God (whether we're talking about God as an idea or, hyothetically, an entity).

If God does happen to exist, his presence is not shown to us, and has no bearing on how we act. The notion also has little bearing on what we consider moral. The Old Testament has God telling the Israelites to wage war on nations, enslave or kill women and children, etc.

[Zepher50]

How is it that there is no absolute morality with God? Regardless of what your opinion or mine would be, if the typical Christian/Muslim/Jewish God existed morals are absolute based on his word.

God telling the peole of Israel to kill does not make God evil. You would be the one making that judgement call not the all knowing God.

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

Wrong... at least with the Judeo-Christian God (I don't know enough about Islam to comment.). The God in The Bible can't decide whether he wants people to refrain from killing or if killing is okay on some occasions. People can take what they want from the scripture, and that's why some Christians are like Fred Phelps and others are more like Martin Luther King. There's already moral relativism in religion.

[Zepher50]

Are you saying God was in the Wrong for commanding the people of Israel to kill the non-Israelites? That he used moral relativity?

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

What I'm saying is that if the God in the Bible did exist, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then God can't make up his mind, and you can take from scripture what you want from it. In one passage, God gives the Israelites the 10 Commandments. One of them forbids us to kill. Then you get the stories of Joshua, etc. with God instructing to do what he just said not to do.

[Zepher50]

You are interpretting the Bible yourself without the inspiration of God. I've been told the literal translation of the Hebrew text is "Thou shall not Murder" which is radically different from "Thou shalt not Kill."

You're saying God can't make up his mind but the problem is you are defining the commandment in your own way and not using God's definition.

Thus it is not God who can't make up his mind but rather the reader's inabillity to properly read the text.

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

You've been told, eh? Can you back this up? I don't care if someone told you something. Show me the 10 Commandments in Hebrew and the passages where God instructs the Israelites to kill, enslave, etc. in Hebrew.

[hyperseauton]

If there ain't a God, life will immediately become useless and meaningless. I could then do whatever I want because there is no absolute morality and killing is not wrong and homosexuality is not wrong and adultery is not wrong.

I would not want to life in a world like that, so there is a God and He is very real and so we can say very assuredly: killing is wrong, homosexuality is wrong and adultery is wrong.

God Bless you, MrCropper and God Bless you all, thanks for listening to reason.

[Egoist9784]

@hyperseauton

You say that killing, homosexuality, and adultery are all wrong, and yet according to your bible, killing homosexuals and adulterers is not only acceptable, but demanded.

[hyperseauton]

yeah, I just get bored with the seriousness and solemnity that MrCropper somehow thinks these answer not only can be answered definitely but alos that he has found these answers.

just trolling.

[FriendOregon]

everything you just said was a mental social construct that really is just a sum of smaller parts. Really everything you said does not exist.

[neothomist1275]

"Moral" is the adjective form of "mores" which, of course, is Latin for "customs."

Heritage is humanity itself. All human actions and beliefs are given a comprehensible shape by an inherited morality.

Using the Christian notion of the individual soul/dignity to correct Christian transgressions is burning the candle at both ends: a process destined to morally fatal.

[NotNamedJohn]

When Judaism branched out into however many different religions, each one claimed God communicated with them and each one got a different message entirely. God couldn't have told them all contradictory messages. The differences, be there a god or not, were because of men and their conscious choices, not because of the almighty.

And while atheists don't have any reason to mutilate a child, they are far more willing, by and large, to abort one. It is equally alive in the womb as it is outside.

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

The fact that something's alive means very little. You do eat meat, and/or plants. They are both forms of life. The morality of what can be killed should be decided sentience/the ability to suffer, not whether it's human or living.

[jeremyshambles]

i believe the exact quote hitchens uses is "generally speaking, good people will behave good and bad people bad but for a good person to behave badly, that requires religion. good video, cheers

[trompette1]

you said we are born with basic moral tools .........are these genetic in the chromosomes......preexsisting in cosmos .......where did these tools come from

[LifeIsPietzsche]

A very long and arduous process of natural selection; have you really never heard this before?

[1729Elan]

I very much liked your ending point, but you should have elaborated on it more. The circumcision example was... obscure. Anyway, great food for thought.

[meka4996]

Hey. Jesus was killed by Religious Leaders and Govt Leaders, so is Jesus part of Religions or part of Govt?? Blame everything on God but none on the people??

Yes, laws can evolve from people, but Morality is much deeper than laws, for example: abortion or death punishment or love/sex, which are really beyond human race understanding, thus controversial, isn't it??

[senorfarqueso]

@meka4996 actually we understand all those things pretty well

[YogSothothPestilence]

Great video, 5 stars

[345moreb]

When we know how we produce ideas we know how god created the world ,the good is what furthers the evolution of the human capacity to embody new ideas.

Cp Spinoza /Fichte

[KajiCarson]

Mr Cropper, I think you confused the golden rule with the social contract at 2:50. They are NOT the same.

[alenmil]

If this was all true is the USA a moral country?

[CapitalistPhil]

Foundationally yes, USA is the ONLY moral country. I wish I lived there frankly.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

What you're defining morality as is the best way to achieve what you want. There's already a word for that; utility.

[CapitalistPhil]

No that's Subjective. What you want is not necessarily moral.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

"You do have some basic things you want and these define the good".

According to MrCropper, it is. Please don't try to say that because you've decided not to rape and plunder that I can't equate what you're defining as moral with utility, because it obviously isn't practical to go around trying to plunder everyone's goods.

[PortfolioManager1987]

Cropper, you tangentially mentioned, and seem to ascribe to, the dominant view out there that the foreskin ought to be chopped off because they're disease prone.

My suspicion is the exact opposite. Persuasive dissenting scientists and their evidence hold this as a myth. I'm no Doctor but I'm with them. I watched a show on this once too, there are many facts to look at here and an anti-skin bias exists where the benefits of skin (including 'shielding' aspects) are omitted from this great debate.

[PortfolioManager1987]

*are conveniently omitted from this great debate.

There's also the fact I'm suspicious of anything religion contributes to the field of physiology.

[NescioQuidErgoDeus]

Of course. There are numerous nerve endings that are chopped away when one is circumcised. It's mindless mutilation.

[NLPNVC]

"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

[vbfl920]

This is a crap argument man. Are you REALLY telling us that morality is based on reciprocity?

You are completely ignoring the fact that so many people do the right thing SELFLESSLY, with no reward.

And we call that morally RIGHT!

[Moragauth]

Reward = sentiment of satisfaction.

Pwnt.

[vbfl920]

That's blatantly ignorant.

If I see a woman being raped and rush to help her, this is somehow me getting a "reward"?

Conviction of moral duty =/= reward.

[triforcelink]

your body will give you a chemical reward, making u feel good, so this good feeling becomes your "reward"

[Moragauth]

It's blatantly true though.

[GamblerJustice]

Really? I call that morally wrong.

[vbfl920]

Cause your a friggen moron.

I bet your glad your parents weren't entirely selfish when they raised you.

[Thill029]

@ vbfl920

The root of all civilization is reciprocity. In order to HAVE reciprocity, you must have a moral code..

And what you and most people would call a selfless good deed is still selfish. The only true selfless acts are acts of altruism which cause harm or don't benefir the individual at all. What makes that moral? And even if selflessness were moral, how is that an argument for god?

[vbfl920]

But NOT ALL moral actions are done in order to "get" something.

In business there is reciprocity too. Does this all of a sudden make business "moral"?

"And even if selflessness were moral, how is that an argument for god?"

Nope. I'll I'm saying is that Mr. Croppers notions of what morality IS, and WHERE it came from are ignorant.

[Thill029]

"But NOT ALL moral actions are done in order to "get" something"

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. We're talking about where the concept of morality comes from. And it is indeed, the need for reciprocity, and therefor the root of civilization.

Referring to your example of seeing a person being raped and stepping in to save her....

[Thill029]

...we learned early on that violence and rape is not conducive to civil civilization. By helping the rape victim, you are a) protecting your society, which in turn helps you, so its selfish in that respect. And b) you feel bad for the rape victim, and you are avoiding the guilt associated with doing nothing to help her, so you benefit that way.

So your rape example is still a moral act of selfishness.

[vbfl920]

What?

You are NOT helping the rape victim so YOU dont feel bad. You are helping her so SHE doesnt suffer harm.

I mean?

[Thill029]

You help the rape victim because you understand that rape is immoral, and therefore the victim must be suffering. But the reason you know that rape is immoral is because long ago, our need for reciprocity led us to recognize that civil civilization cannot work with violence, rape, theft etc etc..

So yes, you are helping her to not suffer harm, but you are doing so because you recognize that rape has no place in our society (which is HOW we came to understand that it's immoral in the 1st place).

[vbfl920]

Rape is immoral because civilization cannot work? Really?

What about in times of war, or between differing people groups?

Why should they care if someone not from their in-group is raped?

[Thill029]

@vbfl920

what are you talking about? I'm saying that the reason we know rape is immoral is because we discovered that to be the fact when when civilization began. You missed the point entirely.

[vbfl920]

"....we know rape is immoral.."

HOW do we know this is a fact?

What MAKES it true, we do?

[EnAttendantG0D0T]

We know rape is immoral because the gross perversion of moral justice of the bible always seems to provide the perfect antithesis of what we actually find the good to be; just ask the midianites (numbers 31:13-21): "Now, therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have NOT known a man by sleeping with him(presumably young daughters), keep alive for yourselves."

Rape as supposed biblical mercy!

[LifeIsPietzsche]

You are advocating a cognitive morality that is simply untenable. You don't help a rape victim because you "understand that rape is immoral", you do it because the sensation of witnessing rape is unpleasant and knowing what is happening is unpleasant; so you try to stop it. This is due to the INVOLUNTARY evolutionary traits of empathy and aversion to suffering. Society was shaped by these traits, not the other way around.

[Thill029]

@LifeIsPietzsche

then why, in some places in the world, is rape acceptable and commonly practiced? Morals, like any other factor in philosophy must be discovered. Primitive societies have little understanding of morality. That's not to say there is no evolutionary component to it, but the mere feeling of unpleasantness at the site of rape, which may occur naturally, is hardly an explanation for why we came to understand that rape is immoral.

[LifeIsPietzsche]

You are right; I was responding to another comment, I should have included a reference to cultural norms; but I do think that one of the main reasons that we in the West have such an aversion to rape is because our culture embraces the natural evolutionary response to rape due to the humanism ingrained in our culture. Thus the reasons that we help a rape victim are still due to OUR feelings and are equally involuntary (to a large extent).

[LifeIsPietzsche]

You DO help a rape victim so that you DON'T feel bad. People are raped all the time and their suffering only affects you if you know about the suffering. It seems pretty clear that it is your own undesirable feelings that cause you to stop a rape. These undesirable feelings are brought about by an involuntary and instinctual sense of empathy and aversion to suffering that is in no way connotative of a metaphysical imperative regarding the act of rape in and of itself.

[CapitalistPhil]

And you call Croppers argument crap? Where are you facts man?

[vbfl920]

I just told you. It is quite apparent that NOT ALL moral actions stem from getting something in return.

Do you ONLY do good deeds to get something in return?

Cropper is basically saying this is where morality comes from.

[GamblerJustice]

@vbfl920

Then where do these moral actions you are referring to stem from, if not from the fact that one benefits from them? Give me an example of such an action, and with what justification one calls it moral if it does not benefit you.

A good deed is not good if it makes you suffer.

As for your comment on raising children selfishly, are you saying one cannot value one's child and have a personal interest in raising it?

[GirlyVoice]

With regard to stealing, in a case where there are no repercussions in stealing someone's car (assuming you knew this for definite in advance) surely you would not steal it because their desire to not have their car stolen is just as worthy as your own desire not to have your car stolen?

[Nicodemus1991]

Moral doesn´t exist as something universal, thats the problem. If we would like to create a universal moral we should then take nature as a model, but the question is, how could we convince others to abandon they moral and accept the "universal"one?

[horvay]

I would summarize it as this:

If you choose to live and be happy, then you have to follow the nature of human beings and how they can acquire this. Somethings are up to choice (colors, type of cloths, etc) and have nothing to do with morality, while others are required to live a satisfied and happy life (rationality, honesty, independence, etc).

If you decide that happiness is not your goal and choose to not to live, well, then, kill yourself and save yourself from a lifetime of suffering.

[freedominsomalia]

i like this

[legendre007]

Rock on, MrCropper.  :-)