TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Your beliefs on where Morality comes from?

C.S Lewis (Christian apologist) and Freud ("touchstone" to atheism) had opposing views on this topic, what are your views?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 30 2013: The problem with those who would argue that God is not the source of good morals is that they have no basis to construct a morality that is devoid of the influence of those who worship or fear what they call god. It is only in modernity that is bent on eschewing God having convinced themselves of their own superiority, that this foolishness has gained foothold. Of course, my question to them is, "By what objective standard is it derived that man is the highest form of life that we know?"

    Show me a human grown to adulthood in isolation (the morals can be derived without a God argument) and I will show you a very self-centered, greedy, prone to violence and murderous individual; in other words, one possessed of very bad morals indeed. What this generation is want to deny (that morals are objectively established by God), is the very thing that they can not escape as the influence that permeates the society they have inescapably inherited and in which permeates their social constructs.

    The thing to remember is that morals can be lost when not transmitted through the generations, and transmitting through the generations is one of the tasks set for us to do by God. Witness where we are going---Promethean and self-absorbed.
    • Apr 30 2013: No gods could be the source of morals because they don't exist. Therefore our morals have always being human. From the horrifying morals of the old testament to the best of the Mahatmas. It does not matter if we could or could not be influenced morally from those who believe in gods, the morals are still far from being of divine origin, which is easily demonstrable. Just look at that old testament for an example. As I said: horrifying.

      If some of these fictional characters called gods were "objective standards," we would find it impossible to develop moralities. Things change from one god to the next, from a god in one story to the same god in the next story. However, we have objective pinpoints to develop morality, namely, our need to be able to rely on each other for survival, our understanding of pain and suffering. None of these require gods.

      But that's only a start. Yet a start that has allowed us to grow up and understand that, for example, slavery harmed many people. That women should have a right to vote, that not being a virgin is not a reason to deserve death. We've been able to reject other things that people have justified for being written in their sacred books, rather than reason about it.

      It is not easy at all. We have a lot of growing up to do. But that's all we have. Fantasizing that gods can solve the problems for us won't work very well though.
      • Apr 30 2013: Your argument seems like the claim that one has a firm grasp of the tree as they work to cut off the limb that holds them up.
        • May 1 2013: Come on. How is recognizing pain and suffering, or the need to be able to rely on each other as gregarious animals that we are, cutting off the limb that's holding us up? Are you saying that morals are rather meaningless except for being commands from a god? (Leaving aside the little problem that gods don't exist.) Is that what you call objective? If so, you have a definition of objective that contradicts what is normally defined as objective. Either you can think about it or you can't. But don't just ignore the answer, please. Think about it this time.
      • May 1 2013: "Either you can think about it or you can't"---indeed. One can think about the meaning of the tree, the branch one claims for themself as the tree and the severing of the limb from the tree to render the limb they have claimed for themself in time dead and termite eaten---or one can't.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.