Religion does not "justify morality" – the question makes no sense – so, of course, we can. Morality, like language more generally, is an emergent property of eusocial species such as homo sapien sapiens. Thus, morality, however primitive and parochial, must have (long) predated cults or religions, and developed along side, or in spite of, them.Can we justify morality without religion?
True. Consider below, however, a proposal for 'moral objectivity' (i.e. ethical naturalism) which isn't derived from ... "if we agree on a subjective point":I have heard atheists suggest that there can be an objective morality if we agree on a subjective point; a derivative if you like. However, that doesn’t in and of itself make the morality objective. — Franz Liszt
My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt
This is interesting! Can you say more about it?As for the nexus between god and morality, all I can say is morality necessarily had to precede god for it didn't we wouldn't have gotten to the point where we gave the matter of god any serious thought. — TheMadFool
This is interesting! Can you say more about it? — baker
My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt
Thus, morality, however primitive and parochial, must have (long) predated cults or religions, and developed along side, or in spite of, them. — 180 Proof
That's taking for granted the theory of evolution. I'm not going to do that, I need something more robust, something that isn't at the whim of empirical data and its interpretation.God entered the scene, so to speak, only after or, more accurately, only within long-established societies; it follows, does it not?, that morality preceded humanity's encounter with the idea of the divine. — TheMadFool
What if God placed that interest in the hearts of men to begin with?It seems just as reasonable to assert that humans became interested in the source of their existence and the cause of everything (metaphysics) prior to their interest in right and wrong (ethics) and therefore God was inserted at that earlier stage. — Hanover
For a few individual humans, plausibly; but it's not "reasonable" at all for groups of humans to have concerned themselves with "the source of their existence" before being primarily consumed with securing their collective survival & procreating, which entails normative 'best practices' – group-survival strategies (e.g. pro burden-sharing contra freeriders) – for adapting to their natural environment as a group. Even Exodus depicts the ancient Hebrew tribes "wandering in the wilderness for 40 years" before they reach Mt. Sinai as "a people" (i.e. customary socio-cultural group).It seems just as reasonable to assert that humans became interested in the source of their existence and the cause of everything (metaphysics) prior to their interest in right and wrong (ethics) and therefore God was inserted at that earlier stage.
Anthropological examples please. Of it not, a reasonable speculation on how it is even possible for a cultus of 'divine permissions & prohibitions' to precede normative moral judgments & conduct (which is like saying 'languages came before, or generated, speech' or 'minds came before, or generated, bodies' ...) — 180 Proof
Even Exodus depicts the ancient Hebrew tribes "wandering in the wilderness for 40 years" before they reach Mt. Sinai as "a people" (i.e. customary socio-cultural group). — 180 Proof
I beg to differ.The giving of the commandments was not the beginning of the ethical system either, as that began with the Noahide laws, which occurs after the heavens were separated from earth, or however that story goes. — Hanover
I don't assume that. It's unwarranted. We're talking about modern homo sapiens, like you & me, Hanover, during the Bronze & early Iron Ages, no farther back than than three millennia ago. No need to go back millions of years for dog-like "mental capacity". :roll: Even so, as I've pointed, morality is constitutive of our eusociality as a species, an adaptive by-product of natural selection. I can't think of a single long-sustained human society or culture, whether religious or not – whether Abrahamic or not – in recorded history that lacks some level of burden-sharing (i.e. help-more-than-harm normative reciprocity) that discourages-excludes free ridering ... morality; can you?But let us assume we have a man who has the mental capacity of a dog ...
My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt
A cursory glance at wikipedia shows that though both Genesis & Exodus were compiled and "canonized" in 6th - 5th centuries BCE during the Babylonian Exile, both consist of much older traditional stories which biblical scholars & archeologists attribute as follows: — 180 Proof
(a) "Moses" lived & died during the 13th century BCE (thus, roughly the time-frame of reception (establishing) the ten commandments Mt Sinai); — 180 Proof
so there aren't any grounds for the claim that Mosaic Law was preceded by the "Noahide laws" and thereby not the beginning of a "divinely commanded" ethical system for the ancient Hebrews. — 180 Proof
Even so, as I've pointed, morality is constitutive of our eusociality as a species, an adaptive by-product of natural selection. I can't think of a single long-sustained human society or culture, whether religious or not – whether Abrahamic or not – in recorded history that lacks some level of burden-sharing (i.e. help-more-than-harm normative reciprocity) that discourages-excludes free ridering ... morality; can you? — 180 Proof
peoples may differ on what exactly they believe is right and wrong but they all agree that there's such a thing as right and wrong. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.