Is God Necessary For Morality

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I do not follow; surely 'ethics' is the moralizing of interactions between phenomenon (even the entirely imaginary, for the conscious is surely perceived), 'morality' provides the means of 'ethics'.

Neither morality, nor ethics has any particular means; and since Morality as word was coined to mean what Ethics means, how can it provide means for a word, and concept which is far older, reaching back to primitive Greece. We can see it ourselves in writings about the Native Americans, who people knew to be absolutely and figuratively blood thirsty in relation to their enemies, who were perfectly moral in regard to their own. What was the means, and what was the end? The end of morality is survival, health, happiness, security; in short, all the virtues we associate with working communities. What is the means of morals and ethics? Both rely upon emotion to work their magic. People, individuals all have their sense of self given to them, with their sense of place, and history, and all the love of mother to child, and all encouragement. Morality, moral behavior was easier for barbarians who were constantly surrounded by nearly human enemies, because they gave on a sense of mutural dependence with their community, along with a deep loss for anyone killed. Outside of ones community it was necessary, because of group responsibility, to behave according to the custom, and character of ones people, to show them both brave, and honorable, so as not to bring conflict and attack home with them. In a good book, Indians of the Western Great Lakes, my home area, there are accounts of Indians being tortured to death, some, mere miles from my childhood home. They did it in good cheer, and were encouraged by their torturers to take it as men, and they offered fresh flesh to be burned, and gave a warning that this awaited them, from their people when captured. We think carrying on a certain standard of morality is heavy lifting. What if courage were a defense for your whole family and people, and the most essential morality. Would you let yourself be cut up, burned, and half eaten before all dead? One does not show weakness to invite attack. One does not show dishonor to invite contempt. Every man or woman letting themselves be burned without complaint was a reminder to all the audience of the horror of war, and the value of peace. If you did not love your own, and hate the enemy, such behavior would have been unthinkable. It is emotion that is the motive behind moral conduct. It is easy to be moral with those we care about.

I could not concur that all non-physical conceptions require/present a moral definition - morality is a process with an end/definition, it is surely not an inevitable associate to any concept; if one were to believe that all conceptions were linked to a moral definition then how could one ever doubt the moral value of a concept, would not the notion of moral evaluation thus separate from the concept, leaving the concept free from it's association with morality? The concept ceases to be a moral concept if the moral value is non-existent, which it surely is when in doubt of the moral value.

I think, if you think about it, you will come to agree with me. If a concept does not define a physical reality, then it defines a moral reality. When something is real, physical, and has being, it may also have a moral value associated with it. When a concept defines no physical reality, it is a set of meanings, and meanings are values. What is the meaning of justice, of life, of love, of constancy, of courage? What value do you put upon them? That would depend upon your moral being, your time, place, community, experience, identity, etc. And, you value all moral realities in relation to each other. Is courage as valuable to you as your skin? Does justice come before honor, or behind it. On and on. When you say: in doubt of moral value, you are pointing to the problem. We suffer the concept of the individual, but the individual as a moral concept wrecks all sense of morality as soon as it is accepted, because morality, like ethics, sees the person as a part of his community, and never fully apart from his community, and that is the correct and natural view of man and morality.

You seem to be saying now that morality is a decision made by others, whereas before you said morality was an associate of non-physical conception. How can there exist such potential for conflation when such a word as "ethical" exists. I find the your differentiation within "morality" ridiculous - although I infer that one's perception of another member in a society constitutes a non-physical conception, and perhaps I agree.

I believe I am correct to say all concepts of non physical reality are moral concepts because they represent values, meanings and this can only be arrived at in relations to ones experience and community. For the individual, the story is different. Take a Nietzsche for example, as an individual, a deliberate outlaw, re-evaluating all values. It is no wonder that his morality was no morality at all. Once one has rejected the mind and memory of society which has learned from an eternal experience of life what is healthy, and best; then all that is left is what feels good, what seems pleasant. People are a bit of life, but humanity, and in short, community is an organism, and it knows how to survive, and culture teaches survival to its children, and individuals reject that lesson at their peril.

Judgement of non-physical concepts is how you began, then you lead to the judgement by one of another, surely this is a judgement only of the object's behaviour, for how could one possibly perceive the non-physical aspects of the object? I think your statement is reasonably conceived as a physical piece of nonsense which presents itself as seemingly non-physical meanings (borne of language, though not devoid of a physical existence, and physical consequence).

Language is a medium of culture, and it does contain many moral lessons, certainly many moral values well established. The point is, that the individual alone has no moral reference point. This much is true, that human beings from start to finish exist in relationships, and all relationships have their morals. But if you could concieve of yourself apart from all relaionships, from society, community, church, government, and humanity; If you were the last human being alive on the planet... What would the meaning of your life be? What would be the meaning of gravity, or of wind, of pain, of happiness. We find all these meanings cooperatively because life is a shared experience. We never find our moral meaning alone. In fact, when alone, or the more alone we are the more given to immorality we are. Why are the young immoral? It is because they are driven to find themselves apart from others, from family and siblings, and as soon as they do so, and as a part of doing so they find they have no moral reference point. If they are alone then anything goes. Do we need God for the sense that we are always watched? We always watch what we do from the perspective of society. But that one who rejects both God and society is a wretched outlaw. Thanks