If God does not exist, everything is permitted
March 22nd 2010 02:42
"Book Eleven chronicles Ivan Karamazov's destructive influence on those around him and his descent into madness. It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God 'everything is permitted.' The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting." -- Wikipedia
Simone de Beauvoir remarks on this in The ethics of ambiguity (1947).
She adds a twist: Contrary to Dostoyevsky, if God is dead, says de Beauvoir, then we are all responsible.
What does she mean?
Here’s my fleshing out of the idea.
Causal responsibility
There is no supernatural force that causes things. There's just us.
Responsibility and independence
As with death of parents, there's no value authority, and no one from whom to ask help.
We decide what is good, and what is evil.
Moral responsibility
There is no "by the grace of God", and, presumably, there is no appealing to the wiles of the Devil. Whatever we do, we do.
So there's no object of praise or blame except us, there is no source of value beyond us, there is no path to forgiveness except between us, and there is no equalizing, there is no making things right, in the afterlife.
***
Simone de Beauvoir remarks on this in The ethics of ambiguity (1947).
She adds a twist: Contrary to Dostoyevsky, if God is dead, says de Beauvoir, then we are all responsible.
***
What does she mean?
Here’s my fleshing out of the idea.
Causal responsibility
There is no supernatural force that causes things. There's just us.
Responsibility and independence
As with death of parents, there's no value authority, and no one from whom to ask help.
We decide what is good, and what is evil.
Moral responsibility
There is no "by the grace of God", and, presumably, there is no appealing to the wiles of the Devil. Whatever we do, we do.
***
So there's no object of praise or blame except us, there is no source of value beyond us, there is no path to forgiveness except between us, and there is no equalizing, there is no making things right, in the afterlife.
| 131 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
I have felt that the force of perception is the creator, this powerful condition of existence predates the big bang even, as the first two super dense, hot atoms had to in fact perceive one another in order for the bang to occur upon their collision. Without perception or the capacity to perceive a thing would simply not exist in the tangible realm which we consider life and reality.
I have acutally written a final paper for an intro. Philosophy class on this subject, and I feel I made an excellent argument regarding the validity of my claims.
Comment by If God does not exist, everything is permitted
I can never bring to anyone to better understand the way their own Countries power authority building; Hierarchy to hierachisation.
If the human pshycho-behavior would need to afraid of a parent guardian; Why bring another theory. Philosophy thoughts shall be helful positively.
I shall never feel guilty by keeping thesis who would avoid negativiy happens to Earth children wellbeing.
Comment by tiggyd
So again I ask, what is it that makes that such a 'matter of fact' statement by some?
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
I'm not a Christian as such, but I'll try to respond to your question from a Christian perspective.
I'll response in two parts.
Firstly, I think a Christian would feel that, without a God, there is no good reason to behave in a Christian fashion. So the argument is not over whether people can behave "well" without believing in a God (as an empirical fact, they obviously do), nor over whether they have a reason to behave well (a Buddhist has reasons, based on Buddhist beliefs), but whether they have well-founded reasons.
From a Christian perspective, the person who does good because of natural instincts is not acting out of rational motives (instead, they're acting out of unthinking instinct), and the Buddhist who does good because of Buddhist beliefs has the wrong motivation, because Buddhist beliefs are false.
Secondly, about the idea that a Christian god is the only well-founded motive... This is a discussion with a long history, but it's sort of related to thinking about the nature of truth.
Some people believe that what makes a statement like "The table is blue" true or false is the correspondence (or lack thereof) between that statement and reality. But in this case, what would make a statement like "You should not murder" true?
One possible reply thinks of moral claims as parallel to legal claims. Just as what makes "Murder is illegal" true or false is correspondence between that statement and a human code of laws, so (thus goes this way of thinking) what makes "Murder is wrong" true or false is correspondence between the statement and a divine code of laws.
On this view, if there is no God, there is no divine code of laws, and all moral imperatives thereby become false.
Anyway, this is one road to thinking that you need a God to have a justified morality...
Comment by tiggyd
Aristotle once said that it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without necessarily believing in it
This makes things clearer, as I said. I like to understand views that oppose mine, and I tire of getting answers such as 'it's foolish to question the word of God', rather than a logical explanation.
Thanks again!
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Notatheist
If God does not exist, everything is permitted.
It is not at all clear to me exactly what is meant by this statement. I assume that “everything” refers to every type of human behaviour or, more precisely, every type of human behaviour that adversely affects other humans and animals, such as stealing, murder, rape, deliberate cruelty, greed, selfishness, dishonesty and so on.
However, I cannot comment on the original statement without knowing exactly what is meant by “permitted”. Here are some possibilities.
(a) If “permitted” is taken to simply mean “possible”, then the statement is correct, and is true irrespective of whether a “God” exists, Christian or otherwise. It is an observed fact that that a small proportion of people exhibit all of the anti-social behaviours I referred to above, and it is an observed fact than none of the many thousands of Gods that have been postulated throughout history have been able to prevent this.
(b) If “permitted” is taken to mean “permitted under law”, then the statement is incorrect, also irrespective of the existence of a “God”. I know of no set of laws in any country that permit all of the anti-social behaviours referred to above.
(c) If “permitted” is taken to mean consistent with how I personally think humans should behave, then the statement is incorrect, again irrespective of the existence of a “God”. In this case, “permitted” would mean something similar to “desirable”.
(d) If “permitted” is taken to mean how most people and societies throughout history have concluded that humans should behave then, broadly speaking, the statement is incorrect, again irrespective of the existence of a “God”.
I cannot help but conclude that “God” (whatever that may be, and remembering that thousands of different Gods have been postulated throughout history) is irrelevant to the question.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
I've always interpreted the idea (and I might be wrong about it) as: "If God does not exist, then nothing is justifiably prohibited on moral grounds."
It's true that "everything is permitted" does not mean the same thing in English as "nothing is justifiably prohibited", but that's how I read it anyways...
If the interpretation of the meaning of the idea is correct, there is still the question: why would anyone think like this? Why would they think that the non-existence of God means that no moral claim is justified?
Well... There's a number of beliefs that might lead one to this position... Forgive me for any repetition here.
For instance:
-- Beliefs about moral truth. See comment three comments above yours.
-- Beliefs about the nature of moral claims. Some people interpret moral statements as divine commands. Eg: "Murder is wrong" is interpreted as God saying "Don't murder". But if your sole reason for doing something is that it was commanded by God, and God doesn't exist...
-- Beliefs about the nature of moral force. Without God, if one wants to claim that there are objective moral claims that are binding on everyone, on what basis would one make this claim? Why should anyone not murder, or not steal, etc.?
Now, with God, it's possible to understand the notion of "binding". God's commands could, for instance, be binding in similar fashion as laws are binding. Eg there would be some power that presumes to order you around under threat of punishment. Or "good" could be understood as synonymous with "pleasing God". So it would by definition by right to do what God commands.
But without God, where does the force come from?
In previous comments, you've mentioned that people derive moral behaviour from their DNA, from their cultural inheritance, and from reason. And in my opinion that they do is uncontroversial. The more difficult question is whether any of these sources of morality have legitimate force (and what legitimate force might mean in the first place).
For instance... The idea that a lot of moral behaviour is concerned with advancing the welfare of the group is probably correct. But what can you say to someone who says, "Why should I care about the welfare of the group?" What moral force is binding on them?
Comment by Notatheist
As a general comment, I note that you are apparently reluctant to express your own views on many of the topics under discussion. For example, the existence or otherwise of a God is central to many of the points we are discussing, yet I still have no idea whether you believe in the existence of a God. For example, you often start sentences with “Many people believe ….” which leaves me none the wiser as to what you believe, which is arguably counterproductive to us learning and perhaps reaching agreement. For example, if we both agreed for a large number of reasons that existence of a God was extremely unlikely, then there would be little point exploring “what if God existed …” type of questions. It may be that you are undecided about whether, for example, a God exists, or it maybe that you enjoy fleshing out “what if” type of questions for the sake of it, even when you already have a firm view on the matter, or it may be that you are concerned about offending those with different views. This is not a criticism in any way, just an observation that you appear to look at things a little differently to how I do.
That said, I think it useful if I “nail my colours to the mast”, so to speak. For a very wide range of reasons which I could not cover here, I personally think the existence of a “God”, and especially a so called ‘Personal God”, is extremely unlikely and, not surprisingly, this influences the way in which I interpret the questions here, and how I answer them. I’m open to the possibility of a God if evidence is presented. With that background, I’ll try again to understand the original sentence, and comment on your thoughts.
I've always interpreted the idea (and I might be wrong about it) as: "If God does not exist, then nothing is justifiably prohibited on moral grounds."
The exact interpretation is not important, as long as we agree, and I’m happy to go along with whatever interpretation you choose. As I am discussing with you, and not the original author, then only your interpretation is of interest to me. I still think that the sentence could mean almost anything depending on what is meant by “justifiably” and “moral”. To be honest, I think that discussing this single sentence while guessing exactly what is meant is largely a waste of time. Still, I have only myself to blame for responding in the first place …..
I suspect that the original author had in mind the concept of a set of behavioural rules for humans (lets call these rules morals) that are somehow created by an external agent and, for reasons unknown, it is believed that these morals are somehow superior and more absolute than any rules that we humans can create on our own. I find this totally bizarre, and pointless to discuss unless we are also given some information about where such an agent resides, what it is made from, where and when it came from, how and where the rules (information) are stored, and so on. Or, does the author believe that morals exist independently of humans, and always have done, independently of the said agent who may at most only be only a messenger? Many people use the term “God” for a supposed agent of this type but, as so many different Gods have been postulated over history, each claiming a different set of rules, it is very difficult to argue that any particular God has a monopoly on an absolute set of behavioural rules for humans. The Christian God seems an unlikely candidate for the creation or dissemination of morals, as we know for a fact that the Bible is seriously inconsistent in this matter, with the “God” of the Old Testament advocating wholesale rape and murder of innocent people. Maybe the author believes that morals change over time, which probably alters the concept of "absolute morals" but, as with everything, we don't know what the author thinks. It is a matter of fact that people’s moral beliefs have changed over time. Does the God only provide the set of rules, and expect us to obey them, or does it operate by somehow messing with our minds, influencing our way of thinking, and thus leading to our personally held notions of how we should behave? Logically speaking, I must discard all known Gods, because the messages are not consistent between known Gods. Is there, then, a more universal “God” which we do not directly know about? If so, then if it sets our morals, I would logically tend to assume that it operates by influencing the way we think, by some method of influence or communication not yet discovered by science. Any other method of communication such as via known religious books is demonstrably inconsistent (both within any given religion as well as between religions) and also somewhat ineffective, because many humans are not religious, many people are not sufficiently religious to read the book and study the rules, and many religions do not have books anyway. I personally think it far more likely that there is no such thing as a universal “morality” existing outside of planet earth and the people who populate it, and I say this independently of the existence of a God. I’m sorry, but with only such a scant original sentence to work with, it is impossible for me to know what the author is getting at, and therefore impossible for me to make any meaningful specific comment.
I will make a special effort to understand and talk about the comments written by Nonymous, but this particular posting is long enough already.
Comment by Notatheist
Hi again. I have to ask, “justifiably” on what basis or according to which criteria?? I may sound like I am being a deliberate pain in the posterior, but I’m not. I explained in my last posting that I think it most unlikely that “absolute morality” exists. That is, our morality is not derived from any source outside of planet earth and the humans that inhabit it, and I say that independently of the concept or existence of a God. I have explained three mechanisms by which we derive our morals, thus obviating the need for divine intervention, and we agree that they are not controversial. I honestly don’t know what else I can say …. To properly tie it all up I should mention that Christians #for example# would claim that their morals are provided by #their# God, though I don’t personally believe that, and could talk at length as to why.
I have no idea why people would think this, surely you would have to firstly find someone who does think this, and then ask them. What is meant by a “moral claim”. A set of morals is no more nor less than a set of behavioural rules, the origins of which can be traced to many sources. I see no connection whatsoever between existence #or non existence# of a God, and whether a “justifiable” case can be made for accepting any particular behavioural rule.
The obvious case of “objective moral claims that are binding on everyone” are the laws agreed upon and enforced by society. No belief in God is necessary for this.
Keep in mind that significant numbers of people do murder or steal, and this is true of every society. Reasons why they should not are numerous, and I have mentioned most of them before. In nearly every society these acts are against the law, so one obvious reason is that the potential offender stands a good chance of being caught and punished. At the risk of being repetitive, another reason is that we are taught not to, usually when we are young and impressionable. Also, reasoned thought also tells us that society will be more productive and pleasant for everyone (including the individual) if everyone agrees to abide by the agreed laws, and not steal, murder etc. However, it’s not really that simple, and I’ll talk more about it later.
Honestly, I can’t see the point of making statements like this, when the all evidence and experience tells us that “God’s laws” are in fact totally non binding. A thief or murderer needs to be concerned about being caught by the police, but most people either know perfectly well, or know deep down in their heart, that God is totally impotent to enforce the “Laws” that are attributed to him. The “fear of God” is only relevant to the believer ….
If people choose to believe in a God, and also believe that “pleasing God” is “good”, then I must agree that it would be correct by definition that it is right to do what God commands. It would be equally true that if people believe that it is “good” to please me, then by definition it would be right to do as I command and, of course, this has been precisely the case many times over in history with loyal (or frightened) subjects trying to please their king/emperor. I conclude that this is a silly argument that gets us nowhere.
The “force” can come from punishment from breaking a law of society, either the actual punishment of the fear of it should a law be broken. The “force” could also come from fear of a tyrannical king, where even if no law is specifically broken, it may be in the individual’s best interest to “please” the king. The one place that “force” specifically does not come from is God, unless you count “the fear of God” for those that believe …. There is absolutely no evidence that any God is capable of detecting a crime, and punishing the offender. In fact, there is no contemporary evidence that I am aware of that any God can actually DO anything ….
That is an extremely good question, and one that I have touched on before when pointing out that what is best for the individual may not be best for society as a whole. A major part of the answer is to point out that a significant number of individuals DO NOT care about the welfare of the group. Whether we like to admit it or not, evolution has made all of us potentially selfish. In other words, our inbuilt, instinct driven moral compass is well capable of producing selfish, dishonest and violent behaviour if not tempered by competing considerations of tradition and reason. Think about rape. Fortunately most men will never rape in their life. However, any man that thinks that a propensity to rape is not hidden somewhere beneath a civilised veneer is likely kidding himself. Why else is mock rape and sexual violence such a big seller in adult movies – people are aroused by that stuff, even if the majority will never do it in real life. I have spoken already how our darker instincts easily come to the surface under conditions of life and death, or even when there is a breakdown of law and order. My point here is that I am not required to explain why everyone chooses to care about the welfare of the group, because not everyone does, and even fewer do so all of the time, and even fewer again do so in all respects. Keep in mind that violence and cannibalism occur in many "primitive" societies, again illustrating that there is nothing inherent in humans that makes us behave in what we regard as a “moral” manner.
Nonetheless, many of us do broadly speaking choose to behave in such a way as to advance the welfare of the group, and I agree it’s a good question to ask why. I am not an expert in evolutionary theory, but it seems to me that evolution would favour instincts that were adaptable to the circumstances at hand. That will certainly include some of the darker instincts that I have referred to, but I would expect that our instincts would also include the capacity to behave thoughtfully to one another as well, in situations where that would be advantageous to the individual. For example, unless a male is in the top few percent of males in size and strength, a better strategy for survival and reproduction might be to cooperate with the other males, and to take a more loving approach with the females, as the brute strength option will not be an option for all males. Even the stronger males may voluntarily call a “truce”, better than constantly risking having their heads bashed in, and always having to look behind their backs … Books have been written on ideas of this sort, and observations with other species. Suffice to say, evolution has made humans extremely complex creatures, capable of extraordinary love and compassion, as well as the most cruel and barbaric acts imaginable. Add to that the fact that everyone is genetically different, and the interplay between “nature and nurture”, and analysing and understanding human nature is very complex indeed, and I certainly do not claim to know all the answers.
In the end, all I can say is that it is an observed fact that societies have developed such that most members acts in a “moral” manner most of the time. I personally believe that evolution, teaching and reasoned thought are responsible for our behaviour and attitudes, and that it is unnecessary to invoke the concept of a God. I readily admit that there are some aspects of human nature that are genuinely difficult to explain or understand, but even then I think that invoking a God to explain matters is an easy, naïve way out, which ultimately explains nothing, and adds nothing to our real understanding.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Just two quick thoughts (apologies that I haven't addressed your comments fully, but hopefully these will be relevant to your main points).
1. Firstly, I think your questioning of what "justify" means, and what is required to "justify" something is, perceptive of you and important. I can't say much more about this now, but I just want to flag this as a key issue. It may turn out that nothing can be justified, or that the sorts of justification the question is looking for are illusory.
2. Secondly...
Do you know of the "is vs ought" distinction? -- It's attributed to Hume, and it may be useful to think about here. (Some people including myself, don't believe in it; but it's mainstream practice to embrace it.)
Hume observes that in many moral writings the author remarks about what humans do, about what is the case; and then, at some point, the author begins to talk about what ought to be the case, apparently taking the former to provide argumentative weight for the latter.
On the commonest intepretation of this part of Hume's Treatise, Hume finds the shift in verbs suspect, and is complaining about a sort of logical deficiency. For that something is the case doesn't seem to provide a reason why it ought to continue. Eg: If a society has always practised slavery, does the tradition of slavery constitute a reason why slavery should continue?
So a Humean-style response might ask of you:
-- Is there any point in your thinking at which you have made this illicit manoeuvre? Where you have gone from "is" to "ought", and have taken the fact of something as sufficient to justify it?
-- Have you mistaken the problem? Have you taken the issue as anthropological rather than philosophical? For instance, you have written, "many of us do broadly speaking choose to behave in such a way as to advance the welfare of the group, and I agree it’s a good question to ask why", and "I personally believe that evolution, teaching and reasoned thought are responsible for our behaviour and attitudes, and that it is unnecessary to invoke the concept of a God." But isn't the problem not explaining our practices, but justifying them?
Comment by Notatheist
Hi Nonymous,
You have hit the nail on the head here. I’m not a philosopher, know little of philosophy, and have never had an interest in philosophy, which explains why we approach things differently!! I seek only to explain things, to understand things, to establish (or at least agree on) facts, and to separate the factual issues from the issues that are a matter of opinion. Well might you ask what I am doing here at all!
I stumbled on the site by accident, saw a couple of topics that I found interesting, and also noted that the people here are pleasantly civil, and the discussion thoughtful and unbiased. I guess I should have realized that with the name of “philosophyblog.com”, the discussions would be philosophical in nature, but I didn’t even think about it. No harm has been done, and each has seen how the “other half” thinks. Even so, truth is universal, so we should be able to agree on at least a few points, even if we (or at least I) made little progress on the philosophical “why/justification” questions.
Many of the points raised are interesting and I will respond further, albeit from a different slant to what might be expected from a philosopher.
Comment by Notatheist
Broadly speaking, I would agree with the principle that just because some behaviour has been practised in the past, this does not in itself provide a reason why it was morally acceptable in the past, or morally acceptable now and into the future.
As per my previous example of leaving Spartan babies to die, I would also claim that just because something was morally acceptable in the past, does not necessarily mean it is morally acceptable now or into the future. Morals are not absolute or fixed for all time, but I have strayed from your point.
Can you point out exactly where I have gone from “is” to “ought”? Maybe I did.
I agree that I have several times referred to how we (or most of us) do in fact behave, such as not stealing, not murdering and so on. There is, of course, nothing wrong with me saying that in my opinion we “ought” to behave in the way that we do, just as long as I give some independent reasons for doing so. As I recall, I did give such reasons, explaining how discussion between members of society could conclude that it would be best for all individuals if no one stole or murdered, and that a system of policing and punishment would be necessary in order for the plan to be successful. Most individuals would follow the rules because they personally agreed with the rules, not because of fear of being caught and punished. This is an example of where communication and reasoned thought in a high-order species can lead to behaviour which is (at least in part) contrary to genetic instinct.
What is of interest to me is understanding and explaining why we behave in the ways that we do. Excluding well reasoned laws, in many cases humans in fact behave in highly illogical and emotionally driven ways, and I could give you almost endless examples of this type. You talk about “justifying” our practices, which I find an odd concept, because so much of what we do and believe is illogical, completely incapable of being justified on any rational basis. For the most part, humans are emotionally driven, non-rational creatures, and the advertising industry knows this and exploits it to the hilt.
FWIW, my own view is that you will learn more about human behaviour by studying evolution, than by studying philosophy.