Roles of the government should be limited to the protection of property rights and the prevention of force and/or fraud via the rule of law. — Mustapha Mond

What about education and public goods, like roads?

Goverments make rules and some people will use the word 'moral' about most if not all of these rules. — mcdoodle

What I am posing is that perhaps a government without those rules is one we should strive for. Much as many people believe in divorcing the government from religion, and cling to it, particularly in the US as a principle of a modern democracy, I am suggesting that this ideology should be extended beyond the separation of church and state, but that we should instead advocate for the separation of state and morality.

Mind You, separation of church and state in no way implies that religion shouldn't exist or even be an important social force, merely that it is not within the realm of the government (and inversely that government is not within the of religious institutions). The reason for this separation, presumably, is the desire for coexistence between people of different religions: they needed a unified way of being controlled and keeping society from descending into chaos, while allowing each respective group, to, to some degree, do what they felt they had to. I'm suggesting that this has roughly been sort of reached by various governments of plural societies, but that for greater coexistence, we should really distill governance to something even more fundamental, that being the bare minimum necessary to assure everyone's basic rights are met.

I do think there are times when moral governments make sense. This is in an entirely homogenous group where everyone has a deeply indoctrinated belief system and morals are, within this closed off political region, absolutely universal. These are places where I, and probably anyone on this forum, who feels the need to think past the status quo, would be very unhappy. Nonetheless, I would argue that it is reasonable and practical for such a society to exist. What I'm mentioning is essentially theocracy. The issue, of course, is when enough people do not concur with the morals of this society. An example that comes to mind is the Amish. Of course, they do not have political autonomy and therefore no control of their laws, but were a state in which every individual is Amish to exist, it should be reasonable for this state to have laws based on their religion for the reason that practically everyone will believe in them. Of course, there will be dissenters, but in such a homogenous society, so deeply indoctrinated, they are essentially equivalent to terrorists attempting to undermine a system that works for everyone else. They are also extremely few. The other important fact about the Amish is that they have non-fragmented beliefs and the introduction of new ideas of beliefs which could change some peoples' leanings are fairly unlikely, given their isolation. In other words, this is a one-party group. I do believe that dissent and change are important in the advancement of society, but people like the Amish might not necessarily be interested in that kind of advancing, and so it seems a logically consistent idea to me.

On the other hand, I don't think that an Islamic state is practical. Islam is an immense religion undergoing and extremely dynamic process whereby there are lots and lots of different opinions about proper morals. Islamic states have, living in them, ranges from the most extremist factions imaginable, to the most modern and secular Muslims to even non-Muslims, and major ideological differences (like Sunnis and Shias). Likewise, Israel has hugely varied types of Jews and lots of non-Jews, rendering it invalid for a moral government. On the other hand, a small neighborhood with only a particular sect of very isolated Orthodox Jews, would be a reasonable place for a theocracy.

Minimum morals are the laws you have in your community. Laws pertaining to theft, murder, assault, etc. Typically they tell you what you cannot do, although they also tell you what you must do, like pay taxes, or go a certain speed limit. — darthbarracuda

I would argue that the examples You do not qualify as moral laws. Perhaps they also happen to be agreed upon by many moral systems, but their existence, I think, is necessary from the only side of government which must exist, which is the one that upholds rights. That is, theft, murder and assault are all injurious to citizens (and also non-citizens, taking my qualification), thereby a violation of their rights, and against what the government must protect. Likewise, taxes allow the government to work, which in turn allows it to protect Your rights, and traffic rules protect individuals' safeties, their rights.

On the other hand, there are laws that are fundamentally not based on protecting citizens, but on controlling what things they can do because the related society views them as wrong. These are things like drugs and prostitution, and gayness.

Why this is the case is because humans are not perfect and cannot be expected to be moral saints. — darthbarracuda

Humans indeed are not expected to be moral saints, but the relative "sins" of my kin don't deny or threaten my rights or anyone else's. Of course being murdered is definitely injurious to myself. That qualifies it for being disallowed. On the other hand enormously decadent parties with all kinds of acts (including things that are currently illegal like drugs, prostitution, etc) that I think are disgraceful to the sanctity of life, which I might think are gross and representative of the failures of humanity and our society's materialistic emptiness, should be completely legal. I don't like them and I'd very much like to have them gone from our society, but I recognize that such a desire isn't about how I want people to act, it's about how I want people to be. You can't really outlaw a cultural element You don't like into oblivion (my goto example is the Jews in the Spanish inquisition, whom were a tiny minority to begin with, yet retained their identity for over a century of oppression). I mean this both in the sense that it is, on a practical level, untenable, and that it is a horrible thing to do (again, Spanish inquisition).

If we allow morals values to become a part of politics, where do we draw the line between which ones are valid and which ones aren't (especially in a multi-moral society with many moral systems). If You think about it, many of the current issues in politics are about this very issue– which morals the government should embrace.

On second thought, there are cases where it is important to protect non-citizen entities. For example, animals or tourists or anything with emotions. So I make a qualification: I encourage the moral protection of non-citizens.

Maybe that can be rephrased as extending rights (even if not the same level of them) to non-citizens with emotional capacity.

The government should, in my opinion, make the laws that constitute the minimum moral expectations of a citizen — darthbarracuda

Could You give examples of what You think those minimum morals might be?
Also, why?

I would say no. Forcing people to be moral (You might argue that's all society does) is not a good way of implementing morality. On a more practical level, a lot of governments' funds are wasted on the promotion of morals, funds which could otherwise be used making people's lives better. Finally, very often, governments' support of morals end up oppressing people (the obvious circumstance being gay people). Also, they create a lot of practical problems not in the convenience of citizens (drug and prostitution-related crime (which accounts for a lot of violent crime) would immediately vanish along with the black market as a result of full legalization).

I do think that morality is important, but it is impossible, especially in pluralistic societies, to expect blanket systems to work for everyone or even most people. If You think prostitution is cool, who am I to judge? It doesn't hurt me in any way, nor infringe on my personal rights. And, in fact, if that makes someone uncomfortable, that's totally fine, too. It still doesn't violate anyone. If I do think that there is a real social problem involving the loss of morals (which I often feel is, in fact, the case), I join or fund or volunteer for some organization committed to bringing whatever morals I believe in to people (without forcefully stuffing it down their throat, as some may argue governments do). With the prostitution example, rather than calling prostitutes criminals and denying them their jobs, if someone is really against prostitution, they should go into brothels and try talking prostitutes out of it their jobs (maybe helping them receive other, better jobs, or maybe realizing that it's idiotic to try to keep people from working, and therefore, living), or pay someone to go around giving speeches on how it is wrong to hire prostitutes because You're watering the essence of the love in sexual contact by doing so.

Maybe there some aspects of a proposition that I did miss, would you kindly tell me what those are? — Jaydison

I actually can't because I don't know much about it myself. :P I was just throwing out an idea that makes sense to me, and settles the apparent contradiction in my head.

The way I see it is that the sentence can't be true or false because, as others mentioned, it doesn't qualify as a proposition.

It is similar to the way that if I asked with, no context, whether the following statement was true or false, neither would make sense, but that hardly means it is a paradox:

"The dog jumped over the cat."

It is not a sensible question to ask because it is not a statement that can be (given the lack of context) either true or false. Likewise, "This statement is not true", which just happens to sound an awful lot like a proposition, simply isn't, by the very fact that asking whether it's true is a nonsensical question.

If only the masses could have conversations like these...
sigh

To me it seems that race is merely an excuse for failing to be introspectively. It seems that for most people, violence and antagonism, "war" and the perpetuation of problems, the pinning of issues upon identifiably distinct "oppressor" groups and such is easier than introspection. Honestly, if one really cares about an issue because it is important to them, I'd expect the rational thing to be to find the optimal state to reduce the issue, taking the action of things in one's control to make things better...then again, sadly, many people are not very rational. I'm not gonna lie, it makes me question democracy.

All great points. Especially:

but my response to that is simply that that's backwards and that mass surveillance should obviously only be instituted once the safeguards are in place. — zookeeper

Now that You mention it, I absolutely agree. I am not critical of some abstract government having personal information on me; I am critical of the particular US government at this moment having it.


Given, Your clarifications and some rethinking, I think we're entirely on the same page.

Also, as Hanover stated, everyone that uses Facebook knows that the information is accessible (although not everyone is aware of the specificity of that statement). The whole idea of having a wall to post on mirrors is analogous to the literal posting of information on a wall, the only difference being that FB has an ability to quickly and easily build in responses and that those reading a physical wall are determined by spatial proximity whereas virtual walls are dependent on social proximity. In that way, it is obviously public, in a limited way. Hang up a poster in Santo Domingo and You can expect that it won't be viewed by people living in Tokyo– that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a tourist or traveling businessman to see it, though.

The right to privacy is a basic right. — m-theory

Could You elaborate on this? Is it a nice, rhetorical statement, or is it actually basic and fundamental? What I mean is that the very sane arguments You provided were about the ways in which access to such information could enable the government to attack other rights, namely the freedom of speech and freedom from harassment. Were You implying a philosophical perspective from which privacy is deemed a basic right rather than a way of protecting other rights? I'd love to hear more about it.

For example, if you do not value your privacy, then why not share your logon name and password with us here? If you choose not to then it is because you realize that this private information can be abused and used in ways that you do not intend. — m-theory

Are You referring to my log-on for Facebook or for TPF? If it's for Facebook, then it is entirely because I don't have the trust that if I do my page will remain the same as before I left it. That is, if a friend of mine were to log into my Facebook, they'd probably post something dumb such as "I like poop". Likewise, You would have access to other information that could prove a threat to my safety–things like what people matter to me and where I live (any powerful government can very quickly figure out those things without my knowledge of my Facebook). But if You could see everything that I post and everything that I see on my Facebook wall, I really would not care, and I do have some kind of a weak connection with You since we're having a discussion (which makes You closer to me than some cubicle NSA agent). Differently I wouldn't share my TPF information with You because You could use it to gain access to my email (I do make the mistake of sometimes repeating passwords) account and perhaps get into my credit card or abuse me in some other way. Incidentally, I've never had a password on my phone until I recently got a banking app. Also, if You notice the way quotes and italics are done on this website, in a way, I have given You my log-on info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jKylhJtPmI

If we continue to allow the government to operate without oversight with such programs there is the risk that they will begin to censor the internet in accordance with their own agenda rather than in accordance with the will of the people and the ideals of the free exchange of ideas and information and also there is the risk that the power to access personal information without oversight will become a tool to oppress dissent of the government. — m-theory

I absolutely agree. I think that the actions of government agencies should be deeply more transparent. To a degree, I understand the need of keeping certain information confidential– information that could facilitate people intending to do harm. But generally, I think that branches of government, including the NSA, the CIA and the FBI should be more public precisely to avoid the abuses You mention. To be honest, in the present age, with the most effective form of data collection being digital, I think that this cloak and dagger non-sense is not very useful; ultimately, the power of Your information depends on the strength of Your hackers (and the weakness of others' security).

I believe it is the public that should decide what constitutes terrorist activity...not an unregulated arm of the government. — m-theory

Maybe that's a pretty though, but it's almost impossible to apply on a practical level. Are we to vote on every choice that a government spying agency makes? I do agree that there should be immensely more transparency and that these government agencies should have more to answer about, but even the public won't always opt for freedom of expression. If it were the 50s, popular vote would probably determine that supporting socialist theories, even if passively, might constitute an act of terrorism. Likewise, today, with the immense power idiocy we have on our hands, it is not entirely unlikely that we might see popular decision suggesting that belief in or susceptibility to Muslim ideas might be acts or indicators of acts of terrorism (but maybe that's more about the folly of democracy, a theory created by intellectuals for non-intellectuals).

On the one hand, the obnoxious rigamarole conducted at airports seems just plain stupid. — Bitter Crank

Airport security is a useless waste of time with only one function: placebo.

Once it was socialists and gays. And in Germany it was Jews at some point. — Benkei

It's a good point, but then again, the Germans didn't have Facebook and they were almost completely successful with technology from 70 years ago...Maybe it's a logical fallacy because I'm sure it would save lives if the government wanted to target people that we think it shouldn't if they had less information, but again this is boils down to another dimension of giving the government power. In an ideal world, yes, government would be enough so that it would only provide services that keep the world running like it should, and wouldn't have the power to kill immense numbers of people. As it is, though, I do think, given how good we've gotten at killing each other, that the US government wouldn't have too much trouble killing every jew in the world without Facebook. Also, in the case of such a douchebag government, it's almost inconceivable that they would not threaten anyone who got in their way and immediately acquire all of the information on Facebook anyways.

The real danger of the situations you presented is not in the power of the government; it is in ideologies that enable those dangers (which is, I gather, why many people are frightened by Donald Trump). No matter how much or how little power you give a government, if it has bigoted, racist or genocidal ideologies it will find a way to carry them out. You only have to look at the fairly weak nations (I'm thinking Latin America, specifically the Dominican Republic, where I live, but there are others such as Pol Pot) where some of the worst dictators known took power and committed some of the most atrocious acts that people can. Yes, if they had had more power, as Russia and Germany, for example, did, then there atrocities would be more comparable to Hitler and Stalin. But suggesting that a nation not be as strong as it could be for fear of what it may do if it turned evil when there are other nations promising to do evil (in this case, I'm thinking ISIS) in a degree proportional to that nation's weakness seems like bad bet.

Still, a good argument and worth considering, though. A couple of times I had to check myself to avoid stating contradictions.

Here's a different but still interesting question:

If you were placed in such a situation to do so, how might you convince a killer to stop committing murder. I know it is extremely broad as there are hundreds of reasons that the killer might be killing, but that's entirely the point. Is there any kind of argument based on the sanctity of human life or something of the sort with a wide enough appeal so that it might be used on most people? Alternately, what kinds of arguments could be used for different killer profiles (how might you convince the psychopath that enjoys it, the desperate one that does it for money, etc)?

Should I post this as another thread?

This might sound horribly imperialist and not too dissimilar from the Europeans said when they cut up Africa, but, given evidence that a nation, given its own government, will act upon its citizens unfairly (in ways its citizens don't want to be treated) and undemocratically, is it correct to grant that nation self-determination? Is that, further, an intelligent decision? I'm not supporting the claim that this would be the case, were Palestine fully recognized by the Israeli government. Just bringing the question up for discussion, since it almost came up and I thought it was interesting.

On a different note, I think that, fundamentally, Israelis don't trust Palestine a state. I'm sure a lot personally know many Palestinians and get along with them, but when every non-Palestinian Israeli person over 21 in the country has spent at least 3 years (during one of the most formative parts of their life) fighting Palestine as the general enemy, it is a high hope that they might otherwise. Likewise, when people live in fear with the memory terror attacks, it is unlikely that trust will be granted (whether that be an intelligent decision or not). As such it seems to me that, whether this reflects reality or not, many Israelis (I have many Israeli friends, and have visited the country a half dozen times) truly believe that a Palestinian government, as its core, fundamentally believes that Israel, as a liberal, democratic, Jewish state, should not exist. I can't speak at all about the Palestinian perspective. Nonetheless, even on this one side, achieving the trust necessary to give Palestine its own government, including an official and recognized military, the right to weapons, and no internal Israeli security checks, seems unrealistic (again, I am not speaking about whether the Palestinians are or aren't to blame for this, although I'm sure that terror attacks don't help), especially being surrounded by Gaza on one side and the West Bank on the other. Many Israelis use the giving of Gaza as reference, claiming that they gave the land to the Palestinians, and now it is a hotspot of terror from whence most of the missiles emanate. I'm quite positive that the average Israeli is not willing to accept a two-state solution because they express sentiments similar to Hanover's: they would love a two-state solution– the terror scares them shitless and they want nothing but for it to stop– but they don't think that a Palestinian government could ever not be associated with terror and the destruction of Israel. Also, from a military perspective (and remember that essentially all non-Palestinian Israelis have served in the army), relenting the said territories is very tactically risky. Invasion through Palestine by any Arab allies would be unbelievably easy, and even if Israelis trusted a Palestinian state, they likely wouldn't trust that it could keep out neighboring countries looking for chinks in its armor (it'd be like Belgium in WWI).

I think it's interesting that mention of Jerusalem hasn't even come up. It is a non-trivial issue. To most of us, who are not particularly immersed in the issue, the city seems of little significance, but to proponents of each religion, Islam, Judaism, and even Christianity, access to the city is important. While much of Israel is quite secular, the percentage of the population that deeply identifies with the need to access the Western Wall is quite large as well (especially in the religious and immigrant-Jew communities). I do not think that this city, or even religion at all, is the only, or the most important element of the conflict, but it is also not irrelevant. The question of "rightfully theirs" gets very convoluted at this stage; Jerusalem was the center of the ancient world and different nations across time have made it theirs. However, entitlement is a serious ill, and religious or not, I don't think either side is willing to relieve their sense of it in this particular city. Solutions such as a shared city have been proposed, but I think there is a degree of Illiad-esque pride at hand, too. I predict that even if nationalistic two-state solutions can be realized a lot of people will start acting like 4-year-olds very quickly over Jerusalem– it's almost like a time machine back to when people thought and acted more primitively...

For the record, I think that Baden has had the most lucid and balanced arguments regarding the conflict.

If abortion were banned again, then the fetus dies anyway because the mother can't afford healthcare, then why aren't the people who refused to support healthcare collectively guilty of the same murder? I think the same would go for pro-choice. If a woman has a right to defend her body from an unwanted pregnancy, then they ought to be more sympathetic to guns and wars on the same basis. — swstephe

You perfectly hit what I was trying to touch upon and a sense paradox I often find in political persuasions. It leads me to be increasingly convinced of the idea that Mark Twain presents in his essay "Corn-pone Opinions": an overwhelming degree of political opinion is not opinion at all. There does not seem to be a truly consistent train of logic tying together what most liberals believe; there does not seem to be truly consistent train of logic tying together what most conservatives believe. Of course, there are things that can actually be assigned to belief groups– for example, liberals tend to act in the support of minorities (which sometimes actually stifle them), while conservatives tend to try to maintain traditional values (which are sometimes romanticized views of pasts that never existed)– but, at a certain level, people don't actually think...

On the other hand, claims about consistency with gun control and such, I don't think are necessarily "for the protection of life". Claims of many of the more reasonable (in my opinion) gun freedom advocates hinge on the opinion (misinformed or not) that an increased number of guns placed into the hands of responsible citizens will cause less deaths. Regardless of whether you think this is a ridiculous claim, if would make sense for someone holding such a belief to be against both abortions and gun-control.

Maybe it would be useful to look at the (in)famous "trolley problem"...But most people presented with this description would still refuse to throw the switch, even when it causes more harm. — swstephe

I don't have immense background in this hypothetical. You said that most people wouldn't flip the switch (I assume because then they'd feel responsible for killing one person, rather than creditable for saving a bunch). Does the situation suggest that flipping the switch is morally correct, and merely very difficult and emotionally tolling, or that, by general consensus, one should not use the switch? My intuition seems to reach for the prior, although I don't have any logical arrivals at it.

Collective intuition (spanning many cultures over an extensive period of time*) is that they aren't independent entities and aren't conscious. — Mongrel

If that is really the case, then why is there a noticeable, at the least, number of pro-lifers out there? There are religious institutions and such that completely forbid abortion at any stage (regardless of the fetus' ability to survive on its own), and some that even go as far forbidding male masturbation. Obviously, suggesting that people have to enact every single chance of procreation and are otherwise committing murder is ridiculous. Nonetheless, I would love for you to elaborate on this collective intuition. It is not intuitive at all to me that being alive requires an ability for self-sustenance. I mean, most people consider that coma patients and people with deteriorating diseases that need machines to breath for them are, in fact, alive (regardless of whether they think it is worthwhile for them to be so).

So it is a proper noun in a sense? Nonetheless, when I say You, I am talking explicitly to You (Doesn't it make You feel just a little bit special?). In my mind, it's equivalent to John (and it would undoubtedly be rude to capitalize David and not John). Nonetheless, that's good insight. I guess I'll hence refrain from capitalization when I'm talking about a general, non-specific "you".

I think that there is an important distinction to make in this discussion, just for clarification purposes. I think that really 2 questions about heroism are being mashed into something slightly messy (although messy is quite fun). I think there is one strain asking the question: is the innate supremacy of many heroes discouraging for people who do not feel innately superior? And there is another vein along the lines of: is the existence of truly skilled and admirable people socially desirable?

To me, by separating the questions, each answer seems almost trivially simple. In essence: Yes and No. Heroes that are elevated by prophecy, by divine descent, by unbelievable ability (I make no claims about how strongly they dominate, or don't, literature and culture), are markedly "distinct". I can never beat Achilles regardless of my skill as a warrior because I am not a descendant of Zeus. Of course, the question becomes more complex when we consider the illusion of choice in character. We decide who and what we are, but those decisions are always based on factors which are not to are deciding–things such as previous mental states, genetics, and foreign influences. Is it unhealthy, then, to pursue stories in which the heroes are perhaps unbelievably kind, or have an intense passion for some goal? It seems that generally, there are forces that societally we consider achievable and not achievable. For example, we seem to think that we can instill passion, it is something everyone can have, and likewise, that intelligence is either present at birth or never to be had. I think neither of these case are realistic, that most of the time, most traits are dynamic and intelligence, for example is a combination of a striving (which we are, through a recursive definition of our selves which bottoms out somewhere outside our abilities of influence) and innate talent. The next question to ask is about the realism of heroes being different or special. I know that on a personal level, I have a bit of a hero complex, and I particularly try to make myself stand out in the ways which heroes are typically perceived to, as if that might somehow increase my chances of my self being a hero rather than someone else. But on a greater level, is it a realistic message to suggest that everyone can be hero? Or that heroic actions performed by different people are equal in their ability to improve society? Clearly, one's power is not of no consequence in this matter. Someone with the ability to save the world is in more of a position to be hero. It is easier for people like presidents and policemen to be heroes (just as it is easier for them to be villains). Nonetheless, I think that instilling in the general populace the belief that they can be heroes propagates the ordinary towards heroism. And maybe the ordinary Joe, maybe I, for example, am not well equipped to be a hero; democratizing heroism means that I am more likely to try–it means I am more likely to do my best to do what I think is important and correct.

On the issue of the flawless hero, I see no flaw. First, I do not believe that flawlessness is something that can objectively exist. It is very much a matter of what one considers flaws. For example, I think Superman looks stupid; it's a pretty insignificant flaw, but still an example. Some people might consider that fact that he ever resorts to violence–fighting fire with fire-is a flaw. Others might claim that lack of initiative in political or social matters is a flaw. Whatbeit, flaws are determined by a diverse set of morals and opinions. Now, ignoring everything I just said, a flawless hero present a paragon of society to strive towards. This is particularly useful if the hero is relatable–someone that came from origins that make many of us think "this could be me". This train of thought brings Ozymandias from Watchmen (a masterpiece of a comic) to mind; he has a self-help lesson thing claiming that anyone can be hero–it is merely a matter of determination and knowing the right steps (which he provides). This kind of hero is evolutionary–he suggests that heroes are, as they say, formed and not born. More, that they are formed not by the legendary waters of the Styx, but by tools that everyone has at their disposal. These kinds of heroes, ultimately, I think, are the kind that encourage similar behavior.

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way. I agree, worship makes no sense. I don't even fully understand it under a traditional religious view. It would seem that God needn't be asked, but that strikes me as another question. — Hanover

Perhaps David is confusing You with G-d, which is really odd. — Bitter Crank

Hahahaha. I just figure there's something overly egotistical in capitalizing the word "I" and not "You"

Click and drag your mouse across the text you want to quote, and release. Then it will magically appear in the comment box ready for you to type around it. — mcdoodle

Wow! MAGICAL X-)

Well, thank You for the help :D

Just throwing this out to the community: am I doing this forum right? I feel like every person that takes the time to read and answer my post deserves a response, but at the same time, I don't know whether responding one-by-one is appreciated and whether it takes away from a discussion.

Also, how do You quote people? I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong...

Your second post is beautifully explained and reasoned.

we are still obliged to examine and defend any definition of good.

What obliges us (which I'm assuming implies "us humans")? Or do You mean "us philosophically-inclined people"? In any case, isn't that obligation merely part of Your own sense of morality, which likely doesn't apply to many people? Or do You mean, we literally have to because there is no way to not, as it is the way humans process and deal with morality?

People examine and defend what they view as right.

So morality is variant and people defend what they believe. I agree that seems to be generally true. What do You think would would happen if people, rather than defend their beliefs attempted to reconcile them with others', holding neither above the other before evaluation of which is more reasonable or correct? Is that even fundamentally possible, or is the root of our very decisions about which beliefs are better than others, the determinant, the judge in our heads, so fundamentally decided by the beliefs that are already held that there is no reconciliation? Perhaps, this is more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but I'd still like to hear peoples' stances.

Finally, You're sort of going off-topic (sorry, if I am too), and didn't really respond to Hanover. Great, cultural relativism is real, and people believe what they believe! How does that attack or support the claim that G-d is the anchor of good?

What anchors the good to reality if not God? Is it just man's declaration of what is good?

Yes

Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad?

To You it is. To them, the are right and You're demented.

Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time)

I am entirely willing to admit that good is a manmade invention, but not that it is subject to redefinition at will. I believe what I believe and the process of coming to believe that has been long and based on what the people I have grown up around believe, what I have experienced, and the thoughts I have had. I can not simply say that killing off people that annoy me is good because it is convenient to me. I might make that claim, but I won't actually believe it; artificial things are real too.

I think it is necessarily true that our understanding of good evolves over time. There is historical evidence of this. Further, I believe this on a personal level (as my understanding of good has evolved through my life). However, I do not think that this understanding is necessarily more true or better (tbh, I don't believe in an absolute truth, which is why the whole "listen to G-d" thing bugs me in the first place), it simply, as You very appropriately said "evolves", a process, which much like organic, biological evolution, does not have an end goal; it merely changes every so often in unpredictable directions.

Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names.

Wow. Beautiful. Considering it on a logical level, though, I feel like You are reducing G-d to morality rather than vice-versa. In other words, from what You said, it should follow that G-d is merely an easier name for whatever You call the system of morality the governs Your life. Thus, G-d's reaction becomes irrelevant; we are just computers and the program we follow is G-d or morality or whatever You want to call it. An interesting idea. Now my question is why You might follow a G-d the effects of which are completely unknown. For example, part of my morality-G-d is helping other people; for the most part, I know that when I help people they are generally helped. On Your end, how can You know that worshipping (as You understand it) G-d is actually causing G-d to feel worshipped? What I mean to say is that the G-d You happen to pray to is one whom You could never know how to pray to? Doesn't that make prayer feel useless? Or is Your prayer to that G-d in fact just part of some greater worship to some kind of social god? (Have I gone too deep in my metaphor?)

As it happens, there are some advantages.

Absolutely. This is why I mentioned that I fully consider myself Jewish despite believing that none of my actions have any kind of a predictable heavenly resonance. It's all about the subtleties.

God the all powerful, all knowing, all present... becomes a being that exceeds our capacity

Same with the Jewish one, and Allah, to my knowledge. More than that, it makes absolutely no sense that an entity so broad and aware would, or even could have preference. For example, to know everything means to be fully aware of every truth and non-truth in such a thorough and significant way that there is no distinction between either. Preference (of morals, for example) in of itself is a flaw that would seem below such a G-d, as preference, I believe, represents a limited horizon. I love my mom because of the pronoun I used to describe her (my). But this is going off topic. This post is not about whether particular conceptions of G-d make logical sense; it is about whether we should act on some kind of godly morality.

My reading of the Bible, including the Gospels, tells me that I should be good to others for their sake

Funny how I feel that my fairly different influences have brought me to the same place of moral understanding...

And whatever our beliefs or non-beliefs, we can behave well or badly as it suits us, and accept the consequences.

I agree, but I also feel that "a the world will be what it is" mentality is fairly stagnating, and I try going against it. I think it still is important to place emphasis on consideration and reevaluation of one's ideas (regardless of what You believe). And the ultimate point is that even if I really, really, really, really wanted to be behave well, I don't know how to. I know how I think I should behave, but I am also extremely aware that my opinion in that regard is extremely limited, and comes directly from all the influences that have been around me my life. Ultimately, I could be wrong, and may be a saint, but still end up accepting consequences for my "bad" actions (which I believe are good)...

It's hubristic folly.

Bravo. That argument brought tears to my eyes.

As a fairly knowledgeable Jew, I'd say You're just about right in Your description of motivators.

Regarding whether God has tricked everyone and told them the opposite of what is true, I don't know what to make of that. If you don't have faith that God is honest, then I guess anything could follow as to what he meant when he said things. He'd be just like any other person you couldn't trust.

I know You said You don't know what to make of that, but I urge You to try to make something out of it. I am aware I claimed that I posted my argument because I want feedback (and that is true), but my ulterior motive was to make people truly and deeply consider a (perhaps) different perspective. So I guess I ask You, how do You know G-d is honest? What are the implications, justifications and possible attacks on such a belief?

1. You have to explain what you mean by "divine deity".

By "divine force" I mean anything mystical that anyone might worship, which the person worshipping believes to be supernatural and have some kind of will, which it is beneficial to follow, either because it is an absolute morality or because it will bring some tangible benefits. To Christians, and Jews, this is capital G, G-d, to Muslims, it's Allah, to the ancient Greeks the pantheon, to Buddhists it is whichever undeified force/judge determines reincarnation. In other words, something intangible (or with intangible mystical elements) which, if real, should define one's morality.

3. In my personal opinion it is more likely that a benevolent God (it is just as likely for the God to be evil, but in that case nothing anyone does will "save him" after death) will want people to act in a good way (good is not, as many people thing, something subjective), so in consequence, the only reasonable way to act, asuming that there is a God from whom we know nothing, is to be ethically good.

First, I think You create a false binary where G-d must be either good or evil. This is not my posture. I am suggesting that we don't know G-d's nature, therefore, these concepts of good and evil stop making sense because it would make most sense that good simply means, in the way You use it, what is most G-dly. Many of us might not think that it was "good" that the Aztecs would force their subjugates to send tributes every year whom they would sacrifice to their gods, but I'm certain that they believed that it was "good". So what is ethically good?

Are You suggesting that G-d is likely consistent? I.e., if It is good, it will treat those who believe in It well? If You are, then I think You're making too big an assumption. If we can truly recognize that we know nothing of G-d's nature, then any combination is possible. It is possible that G-d values exactly the things we think It does, and that G-d believes that perpetual torture is best possible recompense. Does that makes sense?

You use the term "ethically good" freely, but what does it mean? How do we know what ethically good IS? Is ethically good what our society tells us is right? Is it what our religion tells us is right? Is it our whims? Is it acting on one's own philosophy? Is it being a complete douchebag? Is it going on killing sprees? If You don't have an absolute GOOD (which I know You don't because You live in a multicultural society, and You are philosophically-minded enough to be in this discussion and read my post), what does G-d have to do with being good at all?
For me, it is just fundamentally important to be this idea that I have in my head of what a "good person" is (which has been crafted from lots of different things I've seen and heard).