Can morality be objective in a world without God?

Lighten up Cyracuz. It's my theory in progress.
If you want to really challenge my ethical philosophy, challenge the basis.

As non-expendable subjects worthy of consideration?

Some people can not fight the oppressor because of certain circumstances. It is really simple to say rise up against the government when you see your whole life at stake. Why are you blaming the fault on the victim, and not the oppressor?

but is evolutionary biology consistent with empathy? doesn't survival of the fittest entail diverting resources from the weak and needy to the strong and successful?

yitwail wrote:

but is evolutionary biology consistent with empathy? doesn't survival of the fittest entail diverting resources from the weak and needy to the strong and successful?

Survival of the fittest is not necessarily survival of the strongest. It includes the ability to get others to share resources, whether by being lovable (children), trading or begging. Cooperation in hunting, agriculture, child care, etc. can produce greater resources that can be shared with the physically weaker members, who can contribute other abilities such as arts, ideas, problem solving, cooking, healing, etc.

I've heard many individuals posit that God is needed to create objective moral standards. After pondering such a statement, I have come to the conclusion that it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the existence of a God is irrelevant to the debate on the objectivity/subjectivity of morals.

Now that is my argument for morality being objective, next is my simple argument for why God is irrelevant.
Let's assume God does exist and outlines a set of behaviors that are immoral. How is this any different then societies outlining what is moral/immoral? It is moral subjectivity on a higher level, as you are now only getting God's opinion of what is moral. Is it not possible for God to label something as moral, when in reality the action is immoral? Or does that contradict the idea of God?

My first belief is that objective moral standards exist categorically. If person A randomly walks up to person B and kills him for fun, then person A has committed an immoral act. Now some will argue that if person A's culture condones and promotes such behavior then person A was acting morally. I disagree, as the way societies classify behavior should not affect that behavior's moral standing. Behavior "x"(in this case random killing) just is, always has been, and always will be morally wrong/right, no matter how a societiy's feelings towards it change. Morality exists in a realm alongside laws of nature (things like the creation of the universe, gravity, consciousness etc.), in that such things remain unchanged and true to their original cause/form regardless of how we humans perceive them.

Ray

I doubt that a absolute moral can exist without a God. It is, as Fresco said, a question of fundament: an absolute moral most be justified by un indisputable entity or theory, that assures its validity in any time and place. So, it becomes a matter of authority: "this moral is good because God wants it", or "because the Führer wants it", or because "Marx and Lenin said ...", or because of the laws of evolution, and so on.

What you have established is a relative moral, indeed the most acceptable - in my opinion- in our time here in the West. But that moral would not be accepted in periods when men where hunters and territory was crucial, a matter of life and death: violence was necessary. The same during the great migrations.

Being part of the world, being aware of it, does nor lead to your moral conclusions. If lions had morals, eating zebras would be a moral conduct. Female insects that kill the male after the sexual act, would consider it a moral action. Leaving the weaks being to die is almost an universal rule between animals.

You moral rules - that could perhaps be reduced to one: treat the others the same way you would like they treat you (and, please, not the masochist argument!) - are good, I agree with them, but they are not absolute. Only an absolute fundament can justify an absolute moral. Your moral rules are good here and now. So, they are relative to the "here and now".

morality based on "what God wants" is inherently subjective because no one can agree on God's attributes or know its mind. Gods were frequently endowed with the faults of men, warring among themselves and committing immoral acts. What if there really are lots of gods, each with their own ideas of morality?

There is some very intelligent writings on both sides of the issue here, but I find it so hard to involve myself because the issue is, as I see it, a false one.

It's like what the Buddha said right? That when you see a person wounded by an arrow, you don't stop and think about their castes, where they're from, etc, all you think about is to pull out the arrow.