All morality is derived from the oneness of God

submitted by trident765 from old.reddit.com

all 17 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I would say that morality requires divine unity but not necessarily one God. Pre-Socratic Athens would be an example of a moral culture that had a family of gods who at least had some unity as a family under the leadership of Zeus. Idols have no unity at all since each is an independent creation. Similarly, multicultural paganism, like the Roman Expire had, also lacks divine unity.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Zeus is the demiurge and the one we call Satan. Not moral at all, although like most dictators he pretends to be good so people subscribe to him. Really he's just a sadist.

[–]knotsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

How about natural law (per Gauthier) as a basis for morality?

The idea that I will desire to form voluntary agreements out of self-interest that lead to moral behavior. I do not wish to be murdered, and would wish to be defended, so I agree not to murder, and to defend my neighbors from murderers (obviously an oversimplified example but you non-morons should catch my drift). Game theory suggests these arrangements are optimal, and an entire code of moral conduct can be based on these ideas.

Whether or not these laws originate from a deity or not seems rather beside the point

[–]trident765[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What you describe is a derivative of rationality but rationality fails in the case of the Voter's Paradox. A rational person will not vote, because an individual vote has zero chance of influencing elections, so it has zero benefit to society. This is a problem because in aggregate it is in the in the interests of society for intelligent people to vote. So it is better for intelligent people to have an irrational belief that their vote will make a difference than for them to be rational in this respect. Religion is a set of irrational beliefs that when people follow them in aggregate, result in a better society.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The fact that they need to vote in the first place is proof that their vote does influence the outcome, no matter how small.

Religion is no different from a cult and easily degenerates into a tribe of Pharisees. The results are always catastrophic when you let those people be in charge of things. And yes, wokeness counts as a religion.

[–]trident765[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A couple of questions to think about:

1) Do you agree that it is more important to vote in small elections than large elections, since voting in a small election is more likely to influence the outcome?

2) If so, does there ever come a point where the election is so large, that the probability of influencing the election becomes so miniscule that it is not worthwhile for an individual to cast his vote?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  1. Yes, but also because local electives should have more power.

  2. No, because while it may be miniscule, if a bunch of people stop voting because of that mentality it's no longer miniscule.

[–]knotsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A rational person will not vote, because an individual vote has zero chance of influencing elections, so it has zero benefit to society.

This is a problem because in aggregate it is in the in the interests of society for intelligent people to vote.

You say it has no value to society, then you say it's in society's interest. This seems contradictory, it is in society's interest for me to vote, and therefore it is rational for me to do so.

This also seems like a rational justification here. There is clearly a rational reason to vote - its in everyone's interest including mine (assuming I am one of the intelligent voters you speak of) because as you say, we will all be better off if I do. Your non-voter just isn't perceptive enough to realize this.

This seems like being rational isn't the problem, so much as people not being intelligent enough to act rationally when the benefits of an action are subtle and not readily apparent.

[–]trident765[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You say it has no value to society, then you say it's in society's interest. This seems contradictory, it is in society's interest for me to vote, and therefore it is rational for me to do so

It's in society's interests for enough people to vote for the right candidate, but your vote will not affect this, if the election is large enough.

There is clearly a rational reason to vote - its in everyone's interest including mine (assuming I am one of the intelligent voters you speak of) because as you say, we will all be better off if I do.

If large numbers of intelligent people vote this benefits society, but from the intelligent individual's perspective, whether he contributes one more vote makes no difference.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But they add up, so it actually does.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No because most people are too stupid to understand the rational reasons for morality, so only religion works. Please read Machiavelli's discussion of religion in his "Discourses on Livy".

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Religion doesn't work either because it's always taken over by elites and Pharisees. And even if it did work it would make people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And it encourages fear and blind obedience to authority.

[–]knotsy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No because most people are too stupid to understand the rational reasons for morality, so only religion works.

I rather agree that this is likely the case for most people. I am suggesting that for some people it is possible to have a philosophical basis of morality that does not involve deities

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Someone with the intelligence to have a philosophical basis of morality should also have the intelligence to recognize that it is preferable to attribute this morality to deities as Machiavelli explained so clearly. In my case I was atheist and studied history, anthropology, primate behavior, and evolutionary psychology in order to determine the ideal morality. Then I found this morality in the Old Testament, and I recognized the benefit to attributing morality to the god of the Old Testament. Atheists who want to know how to do this can read this.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evilution and nature are the last place you want to look for morality. It's designed by Satan and only in the Old Testament thanks to the scribes. Jesus is the ultimate role model.

[–]knotsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

should also have the intelligence to recognize that it is preferable to attribute this morality to deities as Machiavelli explained so clearly.

I will take a look at Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy", and your essay and respond to them, but I have some reservations about this as follows:

If you accept the God of the Old Testament, I do not see any ontological reason to prefer this God to Zeus or Marduk, or any other creation deity. You reference the 'morality' of the Old Testament, so I assume you choose this religion on the basis of already agreeing with the morality - i.e. the morality was the in fact the thing you chose the deity based off of, and had philosophical justification for, rather than belief in the deity

It seems backwards to me, like a post-hoc attribution, but again, I will take a look at your references and consider them and get back to you.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you accept the God of the Old Testament, I do not see any ontological reason to prefer this God to Zeus or Marduk, or any other creation deity.

My ontology rejects Plato's concept of absolute truth (as does the Old Testament). I choose to believe those ideas that work most reliably. I choose the god of the Old Testament because this god has produced successful cultures and, unlike Zeus or Marduk, remains a functional idea in my time. Christianity and Islam believe in essentially the same god, so I can attend church or mosque and share a religious foundation with the people there.

You reference the 'morality' of the Old Testament, so I assume you choose this religion on the basis of already agreeing with the morality - i.e. the morality was the in fact the thing you chose the deity based off of, and had philosophical justification for.

Yes