Good and Evil without God or Religion
By Alan D Griffin
First there is no objective concept of "good" or "evil" these concepts are purely subjective. Take the practice of infant sacrifice in Mayan and other cultures. This idea to the modern western mind is pure evil but to them their gods demanded it. So, to them to not sacrifice infants would be evil because it would mean the death and destruction of their entire culture. So therefore sacrificing infants was "good". The concept of "Good" can generally be described as that which is beneficial to the group or species at no cost or at a cost to the individual. The concept of "Evil"can generally be described as that which is beneficial to the individual self at no cost or at a cost to the group or species. There are 2 ways I see how we can have secular morality without the need to evoke a God. The harm principle and Biological Altruism.
The bare minimum for "Good" is simply to not cause Harm to others.
Harm is defined as causing hurt, injury, or damage to someone or something. The harm principle which is stated in John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty"as follows "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Which means governments or individuals should not interfere with others freedom except in cases of Direct, Serious, and Probable Harm. Direct, should only Mean an immediate action and not as a result of multiple events. Serious,should only mean, an action that has a benefit or consequence that will greatly change the course of someone’s life. Probable, should only mean, that a certain action will have a highly likely an obvious outcome to the average person. Harm should not include being annoyed, inconvenienced, or offended. Harm should only mean that the
actions of another directly caused serious consequences to a life that was obvious and likely by the observation of an average person. So any attempt to cause harm is "Evil" and the level of "Evilness" is a direct result of the amount of harm done. The level of "Goodness" starts with the bare minimum of not causing harm and the level of "goodness" is dependent on Altruism. Altruism has long been seen as a direct result of religion. Altruism is feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness. But we find altruism across the animal world. This is a product of evolution and is in line with ideas of natural selection for survival of the species. In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behavior benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce.
So we can have secular morals without the need for religion or God. By teaching people the harm principle which we go by naturally because reducing harm in others reduces the chance of harm coming upon ourselves. And invoking our natural evolutionary altruism we can go above the bare minimum for "Good" which is to not cause harm.
Cultures simply call that which puts the self above the group "Evil" and that which puts the group above the self " Good". This is an easy enough concept to grasp without the need to evoke God or religion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
now you just need to put numbers on all that, and you'll have an objective morality :)
It's still wouldn't be objective because what is considered beneficial or consequencial to the group may vary between cultures, environment, and time periods.
I'm just being silly of course. Without an objective way to measure the numbers, there won't be any way for you to get the same result as me (other than pure luck).
This line:
"It's still wouldn't be objective because what is considered beneficial or consequencial to the group may vary between cultures, environment, and time periods."
Coupled with this line:
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
gives us the world we already have.
Preaching to the choir on this point.
Good, as you sample it, is innate in man but was commandeered from him by certain people who would convince him it was the work of, and a gift from, a god or gods. This deception left man unsure of himself, which was the purpose of the deception, to better wrest control from him any (character building) confidence in himself. It was from this early act of deception by unscrupulous men that earned them the title of confidence men, or "con men" or "cons" as we now know them. They would take people into their confidence and then manipulate them for their own agendas. And, to their discredit, the people who were manipulated also earned the title of ignorant masses. This early setting of the stage for gods and religions to thrive was founded upon telling man that good was the work of gods and evil was the work of not embracing them. If they were good, they would enjoy a life of ethical and moral standards that was, in reality, something that was innate in them. But, they were conned to believe evil was their fate if they did not embrace the gods.
Do not confuse evil with the majority of the global populace, but rather the seed of a few unscrupulous amongst them. If you can do that you will have evidence of the innate goodness of most men.