Can there be Ethics without God?
Group 8, “Ethics without God”
Ethical Theory PHI3670a
Spring 2004
Thomas Bartolillo, Chris Cochran,
Cassandra Manias,
Gino Mongelli, and Frederic Susman
Introduction
By
Thomas Bartolillo, Chris Cochran, Cassandra Manias,
Gino
Mongelli, and Frederic Susman
There are many different religions out there that teach their own versions of ethics. Where did these religions come from? What is Ethics and what is God? Different religions from all over the world have created and maintained a set of ethics they claim are inspired by or come directly from God. The problem with this view is that God did not write the Bible, man did. Man also created religions to help support the belief in God and the Bible. “A set of beliefs based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.” This spiritual leader is, in fact, a man. Why doesn’t God himself come down and teach ethics and moral codes to people? Religion had to start somewhere and with someone. Saying ethics came from God gave credibility and validity to their religion and encouraged other religions to rely on faith as well, giving these religions credibility too.
Can there be ethics without God? The answer is a simple one. Yes, it is possible to have an ethical society without God. All rational beings have a sense of right and wrong. We have that sense even if there is no god in our life. Even though I don’t believe in the necessity of God or religion, I also don’t believe those things should be taken away. All people, at least in our society, have the right to chose what they want to believe in. The right to chose is what makes our society work as well as it does.
From a critical point of view, the idea that God is a necessary component to our moral compass is laughable. Considering the wholesale abuse of ethics in human history, all in the name of God, it would seem as if the entire concept of God as a bastion of ethical piety is fundamentally flawed at best, and at worst it is a malignant cancer in the collective minds of humanity. The track record of the practical application of God’s Will to our way of life and mode of behavior is full of abuse and hypocrisy, and the epicenter of some of the most amoral and deplorable behavior in human history.
For my section, I have been assigned the task of debating the effectiveness of God as an integral component of humanity's collective moral compass. I go into detail, outlining the ineffectiveness of this philosophical outlook, as evidenced by actual history. I show that the very idea of God, when incorporated into a moral philosophy, pollutes even the most atavistic intentions, and warps them into something self-righteous and cruel. In essence, I summarily debunk the idea that God has done anything of value in regards to helping improve humanity's grasp of morality, allowing for my teammates to later expound on this viewpoint in their own sections, and offer forth alternative ethical philosophies which do not include God, and are quite effective in instilling good morality in adherents.
An
Explanatory Analysis of Ethics without God
By
Chris Cochran
For many millennia, we have lived with a set of moral rules called ethics that we have associated with one God or another. But do these ethics come from God, or are they just something that man has created in order to control other people? There are many different religions out there that teach their own versions of ethics, but where did these religions come from? What about atheists? Are they immoral people because they do not believe in God? That’s what we are here to find out.
What is Ethics and what is God? Ethics is defined as “A set of principles of right conduct, and a theory or a system of moral values.”[1] God is defined as “A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; also, an image of a supernatural being; an idol.”[2]
Different religions from all over the world have created and maintained a set of moral and ethical values they claim are inspired by or come directly from God. Take for instance the western religions like the Protestant, Baptist, Mormon, and Methodist. All of these religions rely on the bible, one version or another, for their moral and ethical values. They teach that the Bible is gospel and should be looked upon as a guide in by which we should live our lives. But where did this view of a divinely written scripture come from? Again, spiritual leaders default to God as the creator of moral and ethical values in by which man must follow, because it is the word of God. The problem with this view is that, first, God did not write the Bible, and second, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of letters and stories written by men. Not to mention that the contents were edited and compiled into what we now know as the Bible. What stories and letters do you suppose were left out, and why were they left out? Sure, these men could have claimed they were inspired by God to write what they did, but the fact remains the same, God did not write it for them.
One of the most important documents for ethics is the Ten Commandments. The Bible is where we get the Ten Commandments, but the funny thing is, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say, “Here is a list of Ten Commandments which man shall abide by for their moral and ethical values.” In actuality, there are around six hundred and thirteen total rules or commandments that are given throughout the Bible.[3] Somewhere along the way, it was decided to pick out ten of the commandments and create a list by which man will follow. Remember, man created this list, not God. This list became known as the Ten Commandments. Of course, there is not just one version of the Bible, there are many. Not only that, but the bible is just used for the Christian and Judean religion. There are many different religions out there that rely on their own works such as the Hebrew religion that use the Torah for their source of ethics; or, the Muslim religion who use the Koran to derive their ethical inspiration and values. Not one of these works has been written by God. They have all been written by men, but yet these works are used to base moral and ethical values upon. Spiritual leaders use these works as a guide for their followers to follow.
Let’s take a look at religions. Religion is defined as “A belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; and a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.”[4] Yes, now we are getting into the heart of the matter. “A set of beliefs based on the teachings of a spiritual leader”, this spiritual leader is a man, not God. Why does not God himself come down and teach ethics and moral codes to people? Could it be that there is no God? And, religions created by men, were used to create a belief system around this falsity to control the masses to do their own bidding? Why not? Henry the 8th created the Church of England because he wanted to get a divorce when the Pope from the Catholic Church would not grant him one. Why then would it be so hard to envision the creation of religion, all together, to reflect what their creators wanted? Religion had to start somewhere and with someone. A person had to think of the idea and then convince other people to go along with it. This in turn became known as a religion. So, if man created religion, where does God come into play? Do people need a figure head to idolize as a creator and all knowing being? Is it easier to pass off a religion in which there is a figure head that cannot be proved to exist, except in the realm of faith only? It sounds as though this is the case. How else could religions have lasted so long, were it not? By creating a figure head that could not be proven to exist, they never had to do so. This gave credibility and validity to their religion and encouraged other religions to rely on faith as well, giving these religions credibility too. It’s a never ending cycle perpetuated by nothing more than faith.
This brings us to Atheism. Atheism is defined as “a disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods; Godlessness; immorality.”[5] But how does atheism fit into ethics and morality? The last section of the definition for atheists is a good place to start. It defines atheists as Godless and immoral. One of the most commonly asked questions to atheists is, “…If you don’t believe in God, what’s to prevent you from committing crimes? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?”[6] Atheists base their knowledge and belief system on science, rather than religion or a God of sorts. “…science is ethical and ordinary people may not be subjected to scientific experimentation unless they are fully informed and consenting adults.”[7] So the answer to the above question is no. Atheists are still subjected to the same rules that govern a society. Just because they may not believe in a God or Gods, does not mean they are immoral. As I have pointed out above, God did not create ethics, man did. So it is man’s law that they follow, not God’s law.
Endnotes:
[1] Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics>
2 Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god>
3 The Holy Bible, King James Version,
Royal Publishers, Inc., 1971. (Exod.
20:1)
4 Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion>
5 Dictionary.com,
< http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism>
6 American Atheists,
<http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html>
7 Wilcox, Dr. Howard
A. Ethics without God.
McGilvra Brown Press. Garberville, Ca.
1996.
Ethics
without God/Religion
By
Ric Susman
The question “Can we have ethics without G-d?” Eventually breaks down to, “Can we have Ethics without religion?” Many feel that G-d and Religion are synonymous; this is not the case. Many religions have no G-d(s), but do preach an ethical moral code for its believers to follow.
To quote Albert Einstein, “Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal G-d, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.” So Buddhism is in fact a religion since it has followers, but it has no G-d. At least, no G-d like the one described within the context of the Judeo-Christian belief system. However, what is most intriguing about this religion is that there is no after-life. There is no heaven or hell you simply reach Nirvana. This is a state in which a mind has become independent of its physical holding cell, the body.
When a mind reaches Nirvana it no longer needs the body to maintain the mind, there is no more suffering nor are there any desires. This could be seen as an afterlife but it is more of an immortal life that can only be achieved by the mind. However, Buddhism preaches more than just “seek enlightenment,” a number of the precepts of this religion can also be found in the Judeo-Christian beliefs. More so, the “golden rule” is actually written into Buddhism, and is actually stated more clearly than in the Bible. Essentially the major difference between Buddhism and the major western religions would be Heaven and G-d.
Yet there happen to be a great number of Buddhists who are trying to do good deeds and make the world a better place to live, knowing full well that there is no reward for their hard work, save for Nirvana. The same ideal many Christians, Jews, and Muslims try to strive for is based, at least partly, because they believe they will be rewarded with a wonderful afterlife. So does the problem then become, “Can there be ethics without Heaven?” Or, is it deeper than that, do the followers of the western religions only do good things because they fear the repercussions? Does the fear of hell force people to do the things they do and if so will fear make you a better or more ethical person? This is the same strain of logic that can be found in most totalitarian regimes. In essence those who follow these same principals could be the exact same person who is forced to follow the order of a Stalin, or a Hitler.
The really interesting part of the puzzle that is Ethical life without fear or interference from G-d is that Buddhists have succeeded in doing what western religions cannot. They have found themselves within a religion, a belief, which allows them to do well, not for the benefit of themselves, whether it is in the here and now or in an afterlife, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Kant would be proud, since all he was ever looking for was a “good will,” which is precisely what the Buddhist religion teaches. Just do good things, not because you will be rewarded but because you ought to.
Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world, so obviously there are a great number of people who subscribe to this kind of belief system. This is an entire group of people who live by an ethical code that at its core is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. The difference happens to be that Buddhists have never waged a holy war of any variety proclaiming that their religion is the true or correct way to live. If Buddhists can manage to live happy ethical lives then perhaps the western religions would be wise to take a more serious look into the teachings of the Buddha, or of any of the numerous other religions that lack a G-d-head.
Individual
Critical analyses
By
Cassandra Manias
Can there be
ethics without a god? Of course there can. Ancient Greeks had gods who were
more fallible than humans. Yet as unethical as their gods were, the ancients
still managed to function as an ethical society. The ancient Greeks are
renowned for their philosophical and scientific beliefs. Christianity is one of the bloodiest
religions in our history. More wars and
battles have been fought over how God should be worshipped than wars over land
and expansion. If God and his followers are so blood thirsty, then how can he
be our ethical role model?
Kai Nielson points
out in his book that we all know, without any knowledge of a god, that
torturing innocent children is wrong. I say if we can know it to be true in our
hearts without any foreknowledge of a god, then ethics is something separate
from a god. Even if God commanded us to
torture our children, we would still think of it as unethical and immoral. This
leads to the question Socrates asks in Euthyphro,
“Is something good because God commands it to be good, or is it because God
recognized what was good and commanded the action accordingly.” Logically,
nothing can be a priori, or before
God, so how is it possible that I know good and right without HIM?
If ethics is
completely attached to religion, then fanatics and zealots are more moral than
the average person who is atheist. The
zealot may kill hundreds in the name of his/her lord and still be more ethical
then the average person. I cannot, as a rational person, believe that is true.
If God was the
only way for rational humans to exist in an ethical state, then why don’t we
live a state of complete ethical morality? Obviously God is not sufficient to
create that state of bliss. It should
not be that the fear of hell and the hope of heaven are the only things that
keep us acting morally and ethically. In this life, God does not hold you
accountable, society does. If you are accused of committing a crime, a jury of
your peers decides your innocence, or your guilt. Those same peers also suggest a sentence.
Another human, the judge, decides how long the sentence should be. God does not intervene or interfere, at least
not in a tangible, measurable way.
In the bible, when
God’s children were disobedient, He came down and punished them. One example is
in the book of Genesis; “Then the lord saw that the wickedness of man was great
in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on earth, and he was
grieved in his heart. So the lord said,
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both, man
and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made
them (Genesis 6:5-8).” This refers to
the great flood, Noah, and his
I believe we no
longer need God to create an ethical, moral society. In spite of this, I do not know if we should
take God away completely. Having something to believe in is essential for some
humans. It can be a comfort in times of
tragedy. How many times have we heard the phrase “he/she is in a better place,”
at a funeral? In times of extreme
stress, even non-believers will pray. Religion may have its flaws, it may have
spawned countless wars, but religion has also created a lot of good. Just as we should not be forced to worship
something we don’t believe in, we should not force others to give up what they
believe. Free will is what makes our society great. It would be wrong, as well
as immoral, to take away that choice, just as it would be wrong to impose
religion on non-believers.
Would a Godless
society benefit mankind? I believe it would.
I also believe that as time passed, the people of that community would
create something else to believe in.
They would find a way to fill the void. I, for one, prefer the Christian
monster I know, to the one I don’t.
Critical
Appraisal of the Failure of “Ethics with God”
By Thomas Bartolillo
The length and
breadth of all of civilized human history is a testament to the failure of
“God” to elevate the human mind and promote multilateral love and compassion
throughout the world. Be it the worship
of Marduk in ancient summer, or the following of Quetzalcoatl in
Throughout the history of human civilization, perhaps no other driving force behind our culture has been the impetus behind more brutality, death and cruelty to fellow man than the quest for moral superiority and righteousness in the eyes of “God”. No matter the manner of deity (or deities) worshipped, or the religious doctrines within the faith, the prevailing feature of even the most minor belief system which centralizes itself around any imaginary omnipotent figurehead, is an exclusionary mentality that inevitably breeds animosity, and eventually outright physical hostility, towards any person or group which does not share in said faith. Nietzsche says that religion is the resource of those who wish to shirk responsibility and embrace ignorance. In his own words, “The influence of a man has never yet grown great without his blind pupils. To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former.” To many cynics, religion has in fact become the property of a people that merely require a rally point for their bigotry, and a fast and efficient method to draw a line between themselves and those they wish to persecute. I cite, if I may, the most notorious of travesties to occur as a result of the so-called “moral superiority” that humans derive from worship of God: the Crusades. From 1095 to 1291 the Christian Church took part in a bloodthirsty and costly war in order to free “the holy land” from “nonbelievers”. They felt that, by merit of their God and their dogma, they were entitled to special privilege, a sort of manifest destiny. If this prevailing sentiment was merely a product of the time, then why did it not lessen as time went by? Why was Galileo later condemned for his ‘heretical beliefs’ if the fanaticism of the Crusades was strictly a side effect of the daily strain of the Dark Ages? Why did Conquistadors wipe out entire South American nations? No, this was a product of the mindset instilled in these people by the nature of their religion. Hardly an ethical outlook, and, in truth, this is behavior which was distinctly not condoned by their religions. So how did this monstrous activity spawn from a supposedly innocent faith?
Let’s look at the foundations of deity-focused religion from a practical perspective, in order to illustrate its fundamental failings in regard to morality: certain people (for example, Muslims, Jews, Christians) believe that at the beginning of history, their ‘God’ came down and made them his chosen people. He imparted special knowledge to them, and elevated them above the level of other human beings. They were right, because God was on their side, and the ‘nonbelievers’ were distinctly wrong. It would stand to reason for these chosen few that, at best, it was their duty to enlighten the rest of the world to their viewpoint, in order to save their souls, and at worse, that they were entitled to more and better than those who did not share in their faith. In other words, they had superior morality. This idea inevitably leads to the conclusion that those who do not share this ‘elevated’ ethical position are therefore immoral, and therefore less human, an attitude that ultimately gives the religious adherent the notion that whatever they do to a heretic is fine and permissible. The very idea of a God that exists for the benefit of a specific group of people immediately vilifies those who chose not to believe, and gives the impression to the adherent that they may do as they may with any that they would deem as a heretic.
I mentioned previously that there are many other religions that exist which do not worship a God, and that while these religions are infinitely more successful in instilling a desire for peace and kindness within their followers, and have long-standing track-records of peaceful and fruitful existence in comparison of the violent, blood-soaked history of western God-worshiping religions, they have comparatively fewer adherents than the Judeo-Christian faiths, and almost no conversions occur from the latter to the former. Indeed, many people today do in fact believe that “God” is an unnecessary factor to morality, as opposed to the devout philosophy that life is unfocused and savage without direction from their deity. Nielsen writes, “Suppose somebody says, "Look, God is the perfect Good by definition." Some philosophers used to call this an analytic truth--like "Puppies are young dogs." But if you didn’t know what "young" meant, you couldn’t even know what "puppy" meant. If you didn’t know what "good" meant, you couldn’t even know what "God" meant. You have to have some understanding of "good" to judge that God is the perfect Good. So again, you need a moral criterion that is your own and doesn’t come from God. It may come causally from God, but it doesn’t come in a justificatory sense, which is the relevant thing in arguing about morality. In other words, one already must have a defined sense of what is good and moral before they can imagine a good, moral God. Therefore, God is really an unessential part of the equation. Why then do people choose to stay with God and an extraneous faith? Perhaps, it is indeed as the cynics say; perhaps people go to God not for moral guidance, but in order to belong, to differentiate themselves from others, to free themselves from the burden of responsibility. To be sure, it would most definitely seem as though God was a source of immoral behavior, rather than an epicenter of ultimate good.
It is immediately apparent from even a cursory glance at history that religion with God ultimately has hurt more people than it’s helped, created more immorality than kindness. The legend of the selfless Good Samaritan is about as convincing as the concept of Bigfoot. In fact, the continued existence of “God” in our society combined with the overwhelmingly cruel nature of humanity is evidence in itself that “God” is a tool of the unjust and greedy. In addition, as shown by religions such as Buddhism, it would seem that ultimately, only through an elimination of God from one’s personal philosophy can a person find a true sense of good and evil, and cultivate that sense of universal love and morality that we all pretend to believe in.
Bibliography:
Craig,
February
1991,
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits.
1878
Shoot the Hostage: An Ethical Framework
By Gino Mongelli
To the question of whether a non-religious
person can be good, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
responded that only by living in Christ can anyone be good; the other so-called
good and honest people will burn in hell (Mohler 1). As extreme as it sounds, can we not take this
as the inherent (possibly unethical) transgressive kernel which sustains any
ethical position which requires God? In
other words, no matter what thought made or action taken, a godless person can
be nothing other than unethical. In
fact, the idea of acting with Jesus in your heart is almost paradoxical: the
focus is on proper (in this case, inner but externally imposed) intent but the Agood man@
burns in hell. It will be necessary,
then, to explore the possibility of a person acting ethically by means of an
ethical system that doesn't require God as its source.
One can empathize with the position
that absolute knowledge of what is right and wrong is necessary for a true
ethics. However, to claim God as the
source of that absolute knowledge without having absolute knowledge of God is
to make an attribution that collapses upon itself. Then, the position is not
that God is required, but rather, faith or belief (via organized religion) in
God. If it is the case that God exists, there are two relevant possibilities
with regard to the functioning of an ethical model: it is either a Nietzschean
non-ethical (meta-ethical) entity or a being from which we should receive some
divine ethical instruction. The first
possibility obviously denies God-based ethics. The second can be divided into two
possibilities: God=s message
is either universal or personal. If
God's message is universal then why is there not just one religion and why are
we still debating ethics? As for the
second situation, if the message is personal, it belongs outside the space in
which systematic theories of ethics function. That is, religions like Christianity require a
singular, "objective" source: believing in scripture as the word of
God is what allows its system of ethics to function among individuals. If, on the other hand, the source is located
in personal, multiple, subjective experiences, how does one separate fantasy
and the purely false from the true message? Also, how could such a system be communicated
from one person to another without the need for each to experience the
communication personally? This does not
deny that true ethics may belong in the personal realm, beyond systematic
theories. It is the scope of this
section to investigate God-based ethics as one such system and to bring about a
systematic theory of ethics without God.
To make the move from destruction to
construction, an investigation into the relationship between Christ and Lenin
is merited. In the Christian Genesis we
learn of our gift of free will (the fall from grace). AThere
are, according to Aristotle, two primary ways in which an action can fail to be
voluntary: it can be the result of compulsion, or it can be done in ignorance@ (Feinberg and Coleman 752). If someone is acting involuntarily, are they
responsible for the consequences (good or bad) of their actions, and then, can
an act for which someone cannot be held responsible be weighed ethically? Taking Aristotle's view into account, does not
the religious man act under the compulsion of God=s
laws and in ignorance to the question of Awhy?@ To Kierkegaard, freedom involves more
possibility than actuality. In that
sense, the idea of God giving us this freedom, opening up the possibility for
us to save ourselves, is of much higher worth than if we were simply shuttled
into salvation.
Let's first look into an inadequate
understanding of freedom. Here, the
religious man will recall Lenin=s
retort AFreedom
for whom? Under what conditions? [For what?]@
(Avrich 20). It is at this point, for
many religious men, that freedom is equated with unethical behavior. Men, given freedom to do as they please,
revert to "sinful" activities. Note the religious influence on public debate
and law-making: calls for limiting or abolishing freedoms - from pornography
and liquor to abortion, gay marriage and genetic experimentation. However, if we look at the situational context
of Lenin=s remark,
we find it was aimed at the Mensheviks who were calling for the freedom to harm
the peasant government as part of the counterrevolution. His concern is not that of what
"unethical" acts people will commit when free, but rather that the
Mensheviks' call for "freedom" was an abuse of the term (as a tool of
manipulation to take freedom away). So,
Lenin is actually digging deeper, down into a more fundamental definition of
freedom which is that of revolution. It
is in the sense of freedom as revolution that we find the starting point for my
construction of an ethics without God.
In the Hobbesian state of nature
there is described a world lacking any rights. It is when one gives unlimited power to the
Sovereign that the world of rights begins; rights as an illusion of freedom
integral to a system that by its very nature imposes the lack of rights and
freedom. In other words, as subjects of imposed freedom we are not truly free. Claude Lefort here makes the distinction
between true and formal freedom (Lefort 116). Once we enter the world of rights, we start to
speak of formal or false freedom rather than true freedom. This reasserts the idea of true freedom as
something revolutionary; the rebellious act lacks the compulsion of God and
state.
Besides formal freedom being
something imposed, there are two ways in which it can be seen as false (the
consequences of your actions are determined). The way most relevant to the case of
religion's failure to produce voluntary action (related to Aristotle=s Aacting
from compulsionA) can be
found in an experiment by Jean-Léon Beauvois (Lightfoot 240). When one of two groups of people was told that
they had the "choice" to back out from an experiment that may go
against their ethics, nevertheless, the majority of people in both groups
(roughly same percentage) continued on with the experiment. The obvious conclusion is that something
obstructed the conferring of choice from making any difference. Beauvois
outlines three modes through which this happens: the authoritarian, the
totalitarian and the liberal. The authoritarian mode consists of the
official-looking uniforms, rigid protocols, and a sense of Ayou will do it because you should obey.@ The totalitarian mode acts on the idea that
the experiment must have some higher purpose, a sense of, Ayou will do it for the greater good.@ Finally, the liberal mode acts on the subject>s sense of self: why is it that the
subject wants to refuse anyway? In this
way, the person>s
whole psychology can be changed: AI
will do it because I=m
just being closed-minded and I might actually find some new dimension of
myself.@ These three modes act such that even when a
choice presents itself, a person will prefer not to make it. In fact, when such a formal choice is given,
the result is cognitive dissonance with which the person must contend (it
shifts responsibility onto them). It is
important to see there is no difference here between God and country: these
three modes are at work in both.
Once again, we have to question if a
person acting under Beauvois' three modes of compulsion can be said to be
acting ethically - the question is not whether ethics can exist without God but
whether it can exist with God. It
is my contention that an act subject to ethical measurement must be performed
freely (hence, the actor is responsible). Then, this idea of freedom must be explained
fully. True freedom entails making the
radical, meaningful decision not between a pre-given set of choices, but a
decision that changes the coordinates of the space in which choice appears. In the beginning of the 1994 movie ASpeed,@
starring Keanu Reeves as a police officer, his partner is held hostage at
gunpoint. The hostage, as every cop
knows, is the most important person in such a situation. The hostage-taker gives the formal choice of
acquiescing or suffering the consequences. So, what does Keanu Reeves= character do? He shoots his partner. The coordinates are changed, the hostage-taker
has no leverage and the problem is quickly and efficiently solved. The radical choice, then, involves killing
what=s most
important. This does indeed seem to require an attitude change.
If one is to be prepared to kill
what=s most
important, it will not do to make choices based on his individual preferences.
Generally the self can be thought of as the most important, but bowing to
self-preservation is to act under the compulsion of selfishness. In that sense, this follows along Kant=s idea of ethics beyond preferences. This is distinct from an imperative such as Atreat others the way you=d like to be treatedA because, once again, we find the self
at the center of such a decision. As
well, we are dealing with his conception of inner intent. In the way of the
samurai and in Japanese culture itself (language, social obligation, etc.) we
find the concept of heteronomy: the basis of one=s
words, thoughts and actions lies outside the self. This comes from a culture whose main Areligions" generally function as ethics
without God. However, there are
differences in mindset between the West and
I believe this ethics based on
freedom and love is epitomized in Toni Morrison=s
Beloved. In the story, Sethe, an African-American slave escapes with her
children to the North. Her Amaster,@
however, appeals to the Fugitive Slave Law to capture her and return her to
slavery. Out of this seemingly (in the sense of formal freedom) hopeless
situation, Sethe makes her ethical choice: she kills one child and attempts to
kill all three others. Toni Morrison
commented, ASethe is
claiming her role as a parent, claiming the autonomy, the freedom she needs to
protect her children and give them some dignity. In short, in a radical situation of forced
choice in which, because of the relations of slavery, Sethe's children
weren't hers at
all@ (Morrison 217).
The inculcation of such bravery in
people would appear to someone like Hobbes to be a fantasy. On the other hand,
a godless ethics is by its nature a psychological ethics. So, it is something to be refined in a person,
not people. In a Marxian sense, it doesn’t=t seem beyond possibility for a society
to raise in people a predisposition to such action. There are lessons to be learned from religions
without the need for God to enter into the picture. In order to not allow the reader to lull him
or herself into a trance of self-congratulatory pseudo-love, my position should
be stated thus: what is necessary to be ethical is the bravery to accept true
freedom and love... and be ready to kill.
Bibliography:
Avrich, Paul. Bolshevik Opposition to Lenin: G. T. Miasnikov and the Workers' Group.
Russian
Review. 43.1 (1984): 1-29
Feinberg, Joel, and Coleman, Jules. Philosophy of Law: Seventh Edition.
Thomsom
Wadsworth, 2004.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan.
Larry King Live.
CNN.
Lefort, Claude. Democracy
and Political Theory.
Lightfoot,
Geoff, and Lilley, Simon. "Moments, Monuments and Explication: The
Standing of
the Millennium Dome."
Culture
and Organization. 8.3 (2002): 239-254.
Mohler Jr., R.
Albert. How Does the Christian World View the Pope's Pilgrimage to the Holy
Land?
Toni Morrison. Beloved.
Knopf,
1987.
Zizek, Slavoj. The Fragile Absolute.
Verso, 2000.
Conclusion
By
Thomas Bartolillo, Chris Cochran, Cassandra Manias,
Gino
Mongelli, and Frederic Susman
I think without a doubt, ethics were created by man, for man. So yes, there can be ethics without God. God has no role in ethics other than as a figure head. People need accountability and using God, allows us to point a finger and say, “it is right because God says it is right”, nothing more. Faith allows us to believe that God is the creator of our ethics and moral values. But beyond faith, we are only left with people. It is these people who have created our ethical values that we live by. For that matter, if God was assumed to be the creator, which God is it? There are many different religions, with many different types of God or Gods they believe exist. So which one is the correct God or Gods? Do we just pick one and go from there? Of course not, that’s absurd. God is a good reference for the creators of our ethical values to use as a starting point. From there, it’s all a matter of what the religious leaders want to impose on the masses of society, and how they want other people to be treated both ethically and morally.
After all, you don’t think that the Crusades were morally right, do you? According to the Roman Catholic Church during that time period, the Crusades were more than justified, because they were inspired by God. Simply put, the Roman Catholic Church just wanted to impose its will on other people and claimed it was ok because it went along with their ethical and moral values of the time. Things have changed since then, and the Roman Catholic Church no longer goes to war when they want to convert people to Christianity. But why not? Did God come down and say that they were doing something wrong. No, he didn’t. Men within the Roman Catholic hierarchy changed the standards by which they convert Christians, not God.
A society without
God is not only possible, it may be beneficial.
We no longer need a God to help us make moral choices. It may be that the time has come for society
to make its decisions with their heads, not their beliefs. In spite of this, I also believe we should
not force people to give up their beliefs.
Bibliography:
American Atheists,
<http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html>
Avrich, Paul. Bolshevik
Opposition to Lenin: G. T. Miasnikov and the Workers' Group.
Russian Review. 43.1 (1984): 1-29
Craig,
February 1991,
Dictionary.com,
< http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism>
Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethics>
Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god>
Dictionary.com,
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion>
Feinberg, Joel,
and Coleman, Jules. Philosophy of Law: Seventh Edition.
Thomsom
Wadsworth, 2004.
Hobbes, Thomas.
Leviathan.
Larry King Live.
CNN.
Lefort, Claude. Democracy
and Political Theory.
Lightfoot,
Geoff, and Lilley, Simon. "Moments, Monuments and Explication: The
Standing of
the
Millennium Dome."
Culture
and Organization. 8.3 (2002): 239-254.
Mohler Jr., R.
Albert. How does the Christian World View the Pope’s Pilgrimage to the Holy
Land?
Nietzsche, Frederich. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. 1878
The Holy Bible, King James Version, Royal Publishers, Inc.,
1971.
(Exod. 20:1)
Toni Morrison. Beloved.
Knopf,
1987.
Wilcox, Dr. Howard A. Ethics without God.
McGilvra Brown
Press. Garberville, Ca.
1996.
Zizek, Slavoj. The
Fragile Absolute.
Verso,
2000.