Is Morality possible without God


I would argue the reverse: there are consequences to ALL our actions, whether physical, psychological, philosophical, or spiritual, short-term or long-term. Many of these consequences we are not even aware of, but they surely exist.


Okey dokey


Not necessarily the same list, but those who do NOT believe in G-d have also committed crimes on a large scale. Yet, I somewhat agree with you and Bob Dylan on this issue. (But omit #4, please LOL.)


I believe the list is fair since I wasn’t being specific to any religion, just the people that use a deity as their excuse for bad behavior. I also agree that people who do not believe in god do terrible things as well. That was why I pointed out that once people believe they are immune from prosecution of the state or their deity, they are free to divulge into their darkest side. That doesn’t mean they will, but they believe they are immune from punishment.

Female and Male genital mutilation of children is still commonly practiced and is almost exclusively religious based.


Trust me, people don’t need god to be sh***y to each other.

When god was killed and replaced by the only thing that could still claim some sort of transcendence - The State - there commenced the greatest blood baths in human history.

State-Atheism nations racked up a higher body-count than all the religious wars in all history combined. My God, we’re STILL finding mass graves.


The law portion of it is invariably and eternally under contest.

Actions that increase your individual well-being always have some cost to the groups you’re a member of.

Actions that increase your group’s well-being come at a cost to you personally.

The oscillation is endless.


Because your moral sense says otherwise. You are giving yourself problems here. “Should” is a modal verb; the mode is of moral obligation; “should” by definition means according to morality. So you “should” do what your moral code tells you to do. Your question answers itself within the very meaning of the words you use.


Again, here is the concept that I can’t harm others, but why should I accept that as a precondition? If morality is solely subjective then I have no moral obligations other than the ones I impose on myself. I don’t think you have any basis for insisting that my behavior must include not harming others. If I can steal and get away with it, why should I not do it?

I’m trying to decide what my moral code ought to be, and I’m having a hard time finding a reasonable objection to “Whatever is best for me.”


How do you judge what your moral code should be, except by your moral code? You are asking effectively why you should believe the morally right thing to do is that which is the morally right thing to do. You keep asking the question, but it has no meat to it,

What it “ought” to be — ought, like should, implies moral obligation — is what your moral code holds that it “ought” to be. That is … what it is.


I am trying to logically construct a moral code to decide when certain behaviors are justified. While I can think of numerous actions that would be unwise, I can’t think of any that are immoral. The only common guide seems to be this: is it good for me, and can I get away with it?


I’m afraid what you are trying to do will fail. You can argue in a logical form that a certain action is moral or immoral, but only on the basis that it fits, or doesn’t fit, an existing moral code. And your moral code, while undoubtedly affected by influences such as religion or humanist philosophy or self-interest or prevailing opinion in your society, is fundamentally a reaction to the emotions aroused by the empathy (and other instinctive prompts) which has evolved in humans.


I do believe that this assertion is flawed. Or at least unsubstantiated. Not every decision is a moral decision. Whether I have eggs and bacon for breakfast or cereal isn’t a moral decision. But perhaps you choose to argue that it is. If not, then whether I choose to kill someone or not, isn’t by necessity a moral decision either.

So I would presume that the first thing that one needs to do is to determine what makes a decision a moral decision in the first place.


For some Jews and Muslims, whether you should have eggs and BACON for breakfast is very much a moral decision!


And for some vegans EGGS and BACON


That seems humorous at first blush, but it’s also helpful in trying to understand the nature of morality. Because in this case, what’s immoral for one person isn’t immoral for another. Or at least they don’t perceive it to be. That would seem to suggest that morality is subjective. But based upon what? What makes something moral or immoral?


Now in this case I’m not so sure. Indeed in some instances a vegan might consider it a moral imperative to abstain from eating meat. For others it might simply be a lifestyle or social choice. So what determines whether it’s a moral decision or not?


My basis is that if you want to live in a society that protects YOU as well as others, you had better not resort to harming others. It is in YOUR self-interest not to do so, because otherwise, others have the right to get away with harming you as well. If you wish to add G-d to the equation, that is fine. However, understand that stealing is nonetheless not an absolute wrong under certain circumstances and according to certain religious beliefs, for example, when the alternative is death. And stealing may be defined in different ways as well: stealing ideas (cheating, plagiarism) according to both Church and State, which do not always agree. Likewise lying and even killing depend on the circumstances based on some religious beliefs, but do NOT depend on the circumstances based on others. So even with G-d, one is faced with a variety of INTERPRETATIONS regarding the commandments. The individual is still forced to make up his own mind regarding which moral values he holds and where and when those values are exempt.


This is true. But it still doesn’t negate the possibility of an objective morality. Just because one isn’t always able to definitively determine or agree on what’s the correct moral choice, doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t an objectively correct moral choice.

But how do we even determine what’s a moral decision and what isn’t?


Objective according to whom? According to G-d; however, there are different subjective interpretations of what G-d’s objective standard is, so who is the arbiter of which interpretation is closest to the objective one?


So we have two fundamental problems.

  1. What constitutes a moral decision in the first place?
  2. How do we determine what the correct moral decision is?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit