"If God does not exist, everything is permissible"

Posted by: ladiesman

If there is no God, there is no higher standard that can judge anything to be truly right or wrong.

  • Agree

  • Disagree

39% 13 votes
61% 20 votes
  • Everything is permissible, but not everything is good in terms of human morality.

    Posted by: Esiar
  • without a deity, there are no morals. I am religious, but if there was no god then there is no difference between killing a human or a single-celled organism.

  • Without a God deciding what is right and wrong, there are no real morals. How would you get your morals?

  • I believe in physics not some mythical super powerful being that love everyone but let millions of Jews die in the holocaust. so every thing is permissible but only to human moral

  • History has proven in many fallen nations that when man is allowed to do what he believes is right in his own eyes that he virtually self destructs. He becomes more and more evil until he is killed. He then lives under the ruling of the biggest guy or the most unruly guy wins. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If man did not know that he will meet the Great Judge of Creation, The Creator, the Heavenly Father, then he would continue doing what is right in his own eyes.

  • Without God, there is no objective morality. With subjective morality, anything may be permissible by a certain person's moral standards. Of course, the person's moral standards would have to be very low to permit things such as murder, but we know some people have standards that low anyway because murder happens. It would be possible for a person to do something wrong that they believe is right, making it subjectively permissible, and with no objective morals, everything is objectively permissible.

    Posted by: Taust
  • Everything is permissible, but that does not mean everything is morale

  • Assuming that this is referring to morality, even if God exists in the Bible he claimed to give free will to us, (yes, I know this contradicts the ten commandments) so either way its up to every individual person what is right and wrong. Of course there is the common occurrence of majority rule. So if you are in the minority, your life will be ruled by the hand of the majority or morals of the one in charge. This is just the way of greed in humanity. "My way"

  • IF God does not exist then there is no right or wrong as there is no judgment after death. It would be morally equivalent to kill someone as to love them. But since no sane person can actually live with a meaningless life is shows that God exists

  • If god didn't exist, having no morals would lead to the destruction of civilization. Thus, this is statement is nonsense.

  • Getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness — and always thinking that this is "moral" — is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as well— especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion. Morality comes from making choices, not from following commands.

  • By 'truly right or wrong', do you mean absolute right or wrong? If so, that wouldn't dismiss objective and subjective morality. By the way, I don't believe in absolute morality. If it existed, societies wouldn't progress.

    Posted by: reece
  • biologically it makes sense to consider actions such as murder, theft, and rape wrong. it causes mistrust, clearly. A society where everything was permissible is not society just chaotic clusters of people. humans will always have values be it in their homes or in their country. We know geographic location affects this. If an all mighty god governs "right and wrong" why would rape be OK in some places and not others? If god what our judge than geographic location would not matter. its not Just humans either... Even animals such as bats brush off the a-holes in their society.

  • You do not need a fake god to have morality

  • If God does not exist, then, I believe, the moral imperative defaults to the survival of the species. It is a different question altogether of what is best for the species and if that is at the cost of the individual or not.

  • without a God, humans will still have emotions, thus we would still have morality. We would still be able to tell the difference between right & wrong, good & bad. People would still look down upon you if you did something bad. we would also still have the government, thus we would still have laws, therefor, government will still have punishments for doing wrong. God does not need to exist for things to be unacceptable or forbidden.

  • I'm atheist, and have morals. So.... everyone to their own. But remember the right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
ladiesman says2016-08-23T17:11:01.4348501Z
@Esiar What do you mean by "good?"
Nuzlocke4 says2016-08-23T17:12:06.1292942Z
Even if God did exist, what gives him the right to have authority on morality by default? Simply because he is powerful or because he is your creator? Did Dr. Frankenstein have the right to tell his monster what was right and was wrong because it was his creation? Do your parents always know what is right and wrong for their child no matter what? Those who are in power of authority are their because the masses allow it, or they are simply to powerful for anyone else to say otherwise. Even if God did exist, what inherently ordains him as the judge who chooses what is right and what is wrong?
ladiesman says2016-08-23T17:33:20.4397997Z
According to the traditional Judeo-Christian teachings, God is a moralist and gave mankind moral commandments. But this raises some issues; for the most part it makes ethics arbitrary.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-23T19:25:08.9432069Z
That is the most idiotic statement ever. People had a sense of "right" and "wrong" or morality long before Judaism, Christianity, or any other religious bull shit came along. If you don't have an idea of right and wrong without religion then it is because you are an arrested development person who was never taught anything.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-23T19:32:50.6184851Z
Ever heard of the "Euthyphro Dilemma" by Socrates? For our purposes, it will be useful to rephrase Socrates’ question. Socrates can be understood as asking “Does God command this particular action because it is morally right, or is it morally right because God commands it?” It is in answering this question that the divine command theorist encounters a difficulty. A defender of Divine Command Theory might respond that an action is morally right because God commands it. However, the implication of this response is that if God commanded that we inflict suffering on others for fun, then doing so would be morally right. We would be obligated to do so, because God commanded it. This is because, on Divine Command Theory, the reason that inflicting such suffering is wrong is that God commands us not to do it. However, if God commanded us to inflict such suffering, doing so would become the morally right thing to do. The problem for this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s commands and therefore the foundations of morality become arbitrary, which then allows for morally reprehensible actions to become morally obligatory.
ladiesman says2016-08-23T22:00:49.9320631Z
@karlmarx59 You make a compelling point, might does not make right.
Skeptical1 says2016-08-23T22:59:43.5887146Z
Whereas if God does exist, only certain things - such as stoning people to death for the crimes of homosexuality, working on the sabbath or answering back to your parents are permitted. God save us from His morals.
ladiesman says2016-08-23T23:04:26.9177308Z
@Skeptical1 What are you saying?
Esiar says2016-08-23T23:44:08.7920444Z
@ladiesman I'm talking about what human morality generally views are right/moral
ladiesman says2016-08-24T00:49:40.7428320Z
I found some interesting alternatives to the divine command theory; an American philosopher named Paul Copan argues from a Christian viewpoint that man's sense of morality corresponds to God's, being made in God's image. "We would not know goodness without God's endowing us with a moral constitution. We have rights, dignity, freedom and responsibility because God designed us in this way. In this, we reflect God's moral goodness as His image-bearers". And Linda Zagzebski proposed the divine motivation theory, which says goodness is determined by God's motives rather than commands.
reece says2016-08-24T07:47:40.9129771Z
@ladiesman By 'truly right or wrong', do you mean absolute right or wrong? If so, that wouldn't dismiss objective and subjective morality. By the way, I don't believe in absolute morality. If it existed, societies wouldn't progress.
ladiesman says2016-08-24T15:57:32.8918148Z
@reece Another way of saying it is without God, there is no objective goodness.
Esiar says2016-08-26T02:08:39.3771037Z
What general human morality considers right @ladiesman
reece says2016-08-26T02:11:51.0112359Z
@ladiesman So without God in your life, you wouldn't be conflicted in carrying out a massacre?
karlmarx59 says2016-08-26T02:12:16.9828986Z
Esiar: Ever heard of the "Euthyphro Dilemma" by Socrates? For our purposes, it will be useful to rephrase Socrates’ question. Socrates can be understood as asking “Does God command this particular action because it is morally right, or is it morally right because God commands it?” It is in answering this question that the divine command theorist encounters a difficulty. A defender of Divine Command Theory might respond that an action is morally right because God commands it. However, the implication of this response is that if God commanded that we inflict suffering on others for fun, then doing so would be morally right. We would be obligated to do so, because God commanded it. This is because, on Divine Command Theory, the reason that inflicting such suffering is wrong is that God commands us not to do it. However, if God commanded us to inflict such suffering, doing so would become the morally right thing to do. The problem for this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s commands and therefore the foundations of morality become arbitrary, which then allows for morally reprehensible actions to become morally obligatory.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-26T02:13:13.3304598Z
Reece: Great question!
reece says2016-08-26T02:18:57.1490307Z
@ladiesman What if God tells you to carry out a massacre, would that be 'objectively' moral? Does the opinion of no one else matter?
reece says2016-08-26T02:20:02.5142877Z
@karlmarx59 Thanks! :)
ladiesman says2016-08-26T02:30:11.8453887Z
@reece No, carrying out a massacre would not be moral, even if God ordered me to.
reece says2016-08-26T02:33:11.7802656Z
@ladiesman So you would be deciding it's objectively immoral while excluding God, am I correct?
reece says2016-08-26T02:44:38.1778653Z
@ladiesman I think this is the classic case of projecting ones character onto the idea of a god. I think It's better to have a personal relationship with him.
Esiar says2016-08-26T02:51:46.7181063Z
You'd have to ask God where he got his morals from
ladiesman says2016-08-26T02:54:35.1347687Z
@reece Yes, I would. As karlmarx59 said, basing morality on what authority says makes ethics arbitrary.
jeancommunicates says2016-10-17T18:00:06.8338713Z
Karlmarx59 made 5 or 6 comments so I should at least get one more. Noah's son Ham had his son Canaan cursed by God because Ham saw Noah's nakedness. This was Canaan's first curse and their second curse was because they settled in Shem's territory instead of Ham's territory which was beyond the Nile and further. For this reason, God allowed the Canaanites to be annihilated by the Hebrew people, but the Jews did not do as God told them. They left some of the Canaanites alive even though God told them to kill man, woman, child and animal.
Jaguar_King says2018-03-07T20:19:49.4159396Z
If God does not exist then there is no meaning to life and it would be morally equivilant to kill someone as it is to love them. But to have morals one does not have to BELIEVE that there is a God. It only requires God to exist. Also then, they could have had morals before there was any religion because God was there already. And if God is ultimate good then whatever he commands is good. If you don't like that then go make your own universe and put your rules in place there. What merit do you have to question the all-powerful God that created you? Karlmarx59, there is another answer to the "Euthyphro Dilemma" which is "God wills something because He is good." What i mean is that if God is the standard of good then whatever he does is good.
Jaguar_King says2018-03-07T20:20:01.3870239Z
If God does not exist then there is no meaning to life and it would be morally equivilant to kill someone as it is to love them. But to have morals one does not have to BELIEVE that there is a God. It only requires God to exist. Also then, they could have had morals before there was any religion because God was there already. And if God is ultimate good then whatever he commands is good. If you don't like that then go make your own universe and put your rules in place there. What merit do you have to question the all-powerful God that created you? Karlmarx59, there is another answer to the "Euthyphro Dilemma" which is "God wills something because He is good." What i mean is that if God is the standard of good then whatever he does is good.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.