Morality Without God

Do you believe that you need to be commanded to be good? Do you believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute, objective concepts defined by a supernatural entity? I don't.

I believe that our notion of good and bad can be explained rationally, without reference to the supernatural. I also believe that the atheist can be seen to have the moral advantage when compared to the religious believer.

Before I outline what I believe, let me explain what I mean when I refer to the concepts of good and evil within a religious context. As far as I have seen, although there may be rare exceptions, religion considers good and evil to be the whim of god. They are not defined by humans, we must accept them as outside of us, as absolutes that escape our revision. Good is good, not because it is - because of any characteristics we naturally associate with goodness, or because we think it is, by reasoning or instinct, but because god says that it is. Good doesn't have to be that which we think is good, it may even be that which we think is evil, its only qualifier is that god says it is good. For instance, I don't think it is good, as detailed in a bible story, that Abraham was willing to kill his son, so to prove his loyalty and obedience to god. As far as the religious position goes, I am wrong and god is right. What Abraham did, moreover what he was prepared to do, was 'good'.

It is interesting to consider what might happen if god were to reconsider what is good and what is bad. Imagine if god decided that indiscriminate murder was good. The religious couldn't argue; they accept good and evil as absolutes outside of human revision. But surely god could re-define good and evil, any omnipotent god surely has it within his, her or it's power, only a divine change of opinion is needed.

If religious people believe good and evil are defined by god, then they must concede that they are not absolute terms, but merely that which god likes or abhors. This surely could change. This seems to me to make the definitions of good and evil to be no less arbitrary than if they were decided by humans. In fact it makes them more so, because they are not set by those to whom they apply.

What is wrong with humans deciding for themselves what they consider good and evil? The religious believer may say that this would leave us all drowning in a sea of moral relativism, with no compass by which discern true good and evil. This is another way of saying: we do not know that which is truly good or evil, without being told. This is simply another argument from authority.

Let's get one stumbling block out of the way. I don't care if good and evil are absolute. I don't care if good and evil exist. All that matters, is that humankind, as a whole, define what we mean by 'good' and 'evil' and set our laws accordingly. I don't see any problems on the horizon using this approach. Does this mean that anything may be permitted? No, it doesn't. I suspect that evolution has had a significant part to play in instilling in us all a set of shared morals. It is easy to see, for instance, how evolution may have favoured those who displayed altruism towards kin or close neighbours, so that this became an inherent characteristic within us all.

Good and evil according to the will of god, surely renders the concepts arbitrary, less intrinsic and less satisfying than if they were evolved characteristics that had emerged as a result of social exchange between our ancestors. I believe that good and evil, as concepts, need only mean things that humans agree as broadly beneficial or hurtful to themselves and others, in specific contexts.

The definition of good and evil may shift over time, according to the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, but I don't imagine that what we consider extremely good or extremely evil will ever switch categories. This may not sit easy with some, they may say that certain things are, by their very nature, evil and must be absolutely so. I don't personally find this a big problem, practically, as I find it hard to countenance a world in which the majority of humankind has decided that something such as indiscriminate murder may be considered good. However, even in the extreme examples, it is the context and the consensus which are important. If all humans, or at least a very large majority, consider something to be good or evil - this is what is important. Whether this something is absolutely, objectively good or evil is not significant, particularly if this simply means that which god likes or abhors.

Ask yourself, do you think that something is good because you think that a supernatural authority has told us so, or because you can see that it has a benefit for humankind? Keep in mind that whatever good you are picturing may not fit into both categories.

Needless to say, I don't accept good or evil as absolutes or as divine concepts; I think these are things that we can define for ourselves. I don't worry about the semantics of the words and I don't mind that the definitions are changeable, in fact, I think that this is a good thing. Without revision, the morality of the bible may struggle to deal with things that the modern world has come to accept or come to abhor, such as homosexuality or slavery, for example. A dogmatic and unrevised concept of good and evil does not leave any room for the reconsideration or reshuffling according to social change.

I think the moral atheist, who considers good and evil, broadly speaking, on a benefit vs pain basis in respect of his or her fellow humans; who is good, not as avoidance of hell, or as an aspiration to heaven, but in deepest sincerity and agreement with the wider population, with whom an evolved, fundamental moral base is shared, may make a greater claim to morality than many who act only as a result of commandment from their god.