"If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? — Aleksander Kvam

God doesn't tell us what's right or wrong; we tell God. That is, none of is Abraham.

"If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? moral or immoral?" — Aleksander Kvam

Before anyone can answer this, you have to prove that he does exist so that we can then take him out of the picture and see what is left.
Where is your proof?

I never said I had any proof and that was never an issue. It was just an example, for the sake of argument. what would be left then offcourse would just be us humans. No higher entities.

I never said I had any proof and that was never an issue. It was just an example, for the sake of argument. — Aleksander Kvam

But for the sake of the argument to be valid one would have to know his contributions so as to remove them from the equation. As you say there is no proof of his existence so we have to assume that he has no influence on things.

what would be left then offcourse would just be us humans. No higher entities. — Aleksander Kvam

So there is your answer, we would do just what we are doing now.

This is essentially Nietzsche. Most interpret that he concluded that God is dead and then proposed a nihilistic way of life, which is far from the truth.

His essential question was, how can we form a new moral framework, now that God is dead. He meant that through the enlightenment period atheism grew stronger and more common and saw that through more knowledge about the world, the less relevant God would be to explain the unexplainable. This would mean that the future would be essentially Godless. If that would happen, that would also mean that other teachings of religion would go undone, in essence the teachings of moral values.
So he tried to bring up a moral framework for how to live life with good morals in a world without established moral framework, i.e he tried to create that moral framework.

One of the most essential things was his idea of eternal recurrence, mostly misinterpreted as actually living in circular time, but it's essentially about the idea of living over and over. If you would live your life, as you live it right now, with every choice and every event exactly as it has happened before, would you find happiness, even in the darkest events of your life? And how would you treat others?

Another idea is the one proposed by people like Matt Dillahunty, who propose that morality should have it's basis in the well-being of the self and others combined and changing according to the most rational world views of the time. By this he means that if the baseline for morality is the well being of your self and others, there will be little choice to do anything that actually harms others or does something that is purely selfish in in the end hurts others. If you build on top of that rules that are ever changing but always based in that baseline, you will be open to progressive changes. For example, womens and gay rights have earlier been proposed to be morally wrong, but since science and rationality opposed this and we now live in a world where both rights are considered part of basic human rights, pure atheist morals easily change framework to include that on top of the well being of others. But this moral view also opens up for it to be the reason for progressing moral values as well. To purely argue through this framework with proper discourse may even be the reason why we have women and gay rights included in basic human rights today.

I believe that the reason many have problems with a atheistic rational deductive/inductive moral value system is that they are too influenced by a moral system they've learned to live by, through family or religion they might even have moved away from.

As an example, why do many people, especially atheists, view curse words based on religion, as curse words? The value of these words should not have any meaning to an atheist, but they still use them as curse words, like the word "damn" or "hell". This is because the concept of these words have been learned through their upbringing, it's part of the world they live in and they have problems moving away from this programmed way of behaviour. The same goes with our concept of a moral system. You can learn the moral system through religion, but even if you become an atheist, many have a problem of finding moral outside of religious teachings.

This is probably because many atheists take their morals for granted, instead of actually trying to find a framework for it. But it's not as hard as it sounds if you properly deduce a conclusion through rationality. But most people aren't capable or have the tools to actually do such rational thinking about this subject, so they feel lost. In some ways, that's why philosophy is more important now than ever for these subjects. By estimate, the world will be composed of 50% atheists by 2032 and we need a good framework by then, otherwise the nightmare Nietzsche had about the nihilistic future of an atheistic society might come true.

"Before anyone can answer this, you have to prove that he does exist so that we can then take him out of the picture and see what is left.
Where is your proof?..."

I don't follow your reasoning. We should just as well assume he doesn't exist, and then you can dispense with a proof that he does, and you have '...what is left.' You place an unnecessary condition on his topic. I suggest you engage him directly.

Aleksander- "...If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? moral or immoral?..."

Philosophers have long taken it that humanity is fully capable of deriving objective ethical and moral reasoning outside of the bounds and confines of organized religion. We seem to agree that religions have contributed immensely to our moral values, but some values are entirely 'secular' in origin.

As for subjective/relative ethical values, and their moral sub-sets, this should simply stand to reason; they were generated largely outside of the confines of religion, or because of those confines. The same could be said, and for the same reason, for some objective ethical reasoning; some deeper thinking or new experiences relegated the teachings and values of organized religion to the slag-heap where they belong.

I shouder to think that religious people are moral and caring for others simply because it will reserve their place in heaven.
someone who does the "right thing" with nothing to win, seems more noble to me.
a bit off-topic perhaps but still...

Yes, that is a bit afield. It's a different conversation. I don't know that secular/atheist thinkers would offer to 'do the right thing' for any less self-serving reasons. We all do what we are reinforced for doing. If that is a utilitarian aim, is it for the sake of the 'greater good', or because the person acting wishes to satisfy that aim? Is his purpose for the greater good or to adhere to the principle? What does she get out of it...what's in it for her. Some would say that it ought to be, or is, for the general satisfaction. Some would say it is for altruistic reasons. Either way, it is to diminish an inner tension or dissonance.

And, to address your statement about religion and morality, if the person accepts that the rules and values that govern them are inherently good, or have intrinsic worth, does it matter from what field of reasoning they come if that person then acts accordingly? Is religion going to be necessarily corrupt or mistaken in urging people not to steal from each other, whether it is trust or material things?

You might wish to learn a bit about Larry Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. His thinking is that we change our orientation from pure self-satisfaction to an outward orientation and then ultimately to a universal and high set of values, although he suggests that it is the somewhat rare adult that will get to that lofty sixth stage. There are some problems with his method and conclusions, which you can learn at your leisure, but suffice it to say that he has a reasonable working model for how children move from 'the self' to 'being of service to others', which mature and autonomous adults must necessarily become in order to be parents and to work with others.

I don't know that secular/atheist thinkers would offer to 'do the right thing' for any less self-serving reasons — gloaming

Not true. You do the right thing because it FEELS right and not because you have been tought that it is right.

Does there need to be a 'truly right' or 'truly wrong'? What would this even imply? Would it mean any more than outlawing something? To say something is wrong implies that it has measurable negative implications. These negative implications characterize its value as wrong. A negative implication would be loss, depression, diminished happiness, etc... The only thing that is truly meaningful is a rational structuring of a society that gives certain unalienable rights. These are what provide the common sense of right and wrong, not God. God is the substantiation. God is the safety net for people who do not want to think further. The philosophy of ethics is where to start if you want to know of Right and Wrong. There is Kant's metaphysics of morals. There is Utilitarianism by John Mill. There are many others as well. But that is a good place to start.

I disagree. This is supposing too much. People do not act in accordance with right or wrong. People simply act. People find value in what is commonly referred to as wrong just as much as right. Right and wrong are only significant in terms of the law... Anywhere else they are simply metaphor.

I guess I was just speaking for myself then.

I understand what you mean. "Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings; always darker, emptier and simpler." Nietzsche. We think based upon what we feel, and we act based upon this as well. Usually what we feel and what we do is in accordance with what we think is the right thing in that given situation. However, this 'rightness' is not by virtue of what we feel to be right, as if what is right is bt virtue of some sort of infallible agency of truth dictating rightness. Freud would have called this the super ego.

If I feel it is right to steal food for my family when they have no food, does this make the act right?

I dont know, but I would do it to..

Base it off of the necessities to live and the fairness of resources.

I curtainly dont belive that the goverment is allways right. without question.

The standard argument for how morality exists in a godless universe, is that it's a function of evolution. Communities define themselves by rules (generally, the social rules we call "morality") that are instrumentally conducive to their flourishing (and therefore to stable conditions for reproduction), that get ingrained, and even selected for genetically to some extent, and further reinforced by social conditioning (parents, social structures).

The only problem there is that one isn't able to argue anyone into morality - to tell them why they should choose the goal of their flourishing, or their community's flourishing, or humanity's flourishing.

But then the idea that one could argue anyone into a "should" was always pretty dubious anyway. Even if you say that "it is good because God wills it" - one can always say "so what?" even to that.

Basically, you can have instrumental reasons at the level of selection between rules that are conducive to goal X (which is for most people, usually, this kind of flourishing or happiness idea). "If you want X, then you must/should A, B, C." That all makes perfect sense, and is perfectly objective. The problem comes in the choice of X - the choice of the over-arching goal that sets in place the structure of that particular set of moral rules. That is something you can't really argue someone into.

But then the godless argument would be, well, that's just what we're born with, what we've evolved to be. Most people happen to be (as a result of their genetics) basically "good" (it would be a bell-curve distribution like most other traits, with a few saints at one end and a few sharks at the other end). And from that point of view, it is very much an "is" from which the "ought" of morality follows. It's just the way we are, we are just built to be basically nice (most of us, most of the time). And those who aren't have to fall in line, or they get punished (and there are more of us).

But then the idea that one could argue anyone into a "should" was always pretty dubious anyway. Even if you say that "it is good because God wills it" - one can always say "so what?" even to that. — gurugeorge

any without god, it would be even easier to say "so what". but yes, I hear you.

any without god, it would be even easier to say "so what". but yes, I hear you. — Aleksander Kvam

It's the same for a godfull and godless universe. Basically, unless you want to be good in the first place, nothing's going to argue you into it. Some human beings are like that (what I'm calling "sharks", by analogy with the dead-eyed, machine-like predatory quality of the shark) - they just don't have any sense of compassion, or fellow-feeling. They are outliers, but they exist, just as "saints" exist (people who are all love and compassion all the time). For them, no "should" argument would make sense anyway.

Most moral talk is basically preaching to the choir.

It's the same for a godfull and godless universe. Basically, unless you want to be good in the first place, nothing's going to argue you into it. — gurugeorge

there is allways the treat of going to hell, if there is a god.

But none of that would have anything to do with morality, only that which is conducive to successful copulations. Often what is considered 'wrong' is conducive to success and a better life for the individuals associated. Morality is not some sort of biological necessity or instinct. Morality is a classification of behavior as it relates to Ethics. Only Ethics deals with right and wrong.

If, in this hypothesis, god didnt exist, how would mankind as a whole decide what is wrong and what is right? moral or immoral? — Aleksander Kvam

It's the economy, stupid!

OOOOOKKKKKK!!!!!

True, but that's a pragmatic reason, not a philosophical reason :)

But none of that would have anything to do with morality, only that which is conducive to successful copulations. — Blue Lux

Yes, well that would be the irony of it: all our grand moral structures, which actually exist and actually are objective, ultimately exist because they're conducive to successful copulation.

But one has to be careful here: that doesn't mean successful copulation is the standard or criterion of morality. The standard and criterion of morality is the flourishing and success of a community and the individuals in it, and that has its own independent reasons.

The irony is simply that the reason WHY rules that are conducive to the group's flourishing have evolved, exist and are maintained, is because such objective rule-structures (with their own independent criteria) are in turn conducive to successful copulation.

It is to laugh, but there it is. Nature is full of such little ironies :)

Another one that's the cause of so much human suffering is that we are accidentally exquisitely over-engineered to feel pain and shame. Everybody hurts and all that. But it's another accidental byproduct.

Not true. You do the right thing because it FEELS right and not because you have been tought that it is right.

People who have little compunction about self-service undoubtedly do as you suggest....they act if it feels right. Those of us who are more careful, more oriented toward the service to others, or who merely wish to live less-encumbered and troubled by the reproaches of onlookers with whom we share the cultural space and appurtenances, consider what IS right.