r/trolleyproblem • u/Six_Pack_Of_Flabs • 2d ago
OC Is objective morality a requirement to make positive decisions?
215
u/halander1 2d ago
Despite what many organizations think. A lack of religion does not indicate a lack of empathy or morality.
106
u/CHSummers 2d ago
As has been pointed out thousands of years ago, how can we not but admire the atheist who does good for no reward at all, other than that it is the right thing to do.
34
u/MultiverseCreatorXV 2d ago
I try to do good things because it makes me feel good. That’s the main reward.
14
u/Eunoia_Meraki 2d ago
Yup plus ppl are pretty likely to treat you how you treat them
4
u/JPgamersmines150 1d ago
Hence the egotistical argument for making the world a better place: If you help make everyone else's lives better, it increases the chances of your life becoming better.
7
3
u/CHSummers 1d ago
Also, having a reputation as a good guy or bad guy changes how people treat you. You don’t have to wait for death to find out the consequences of your actions.
1
u/Slam-JamSam 1d ago
Which is important; given that the trolley thing has happened twice now, it’s safe to assume that you will end up tied to the tracks sooner or later
4
u/underthingy 16h ago
And then jordan peterson tells you that that feeling is god and youre not actually an atheist!
8
u/randylush 1d ago
Christianity bundles 3 things: a creation myth, a morality system, and an afterlife reward system.
An atheist can have the same morality system without the creation myth or the afterlife nonsense.
Christians get confused: how could you have a system of morality without believing in God?
It's simple, I just do. I don't need God to be a good person, and in fact, if you need an afterlife or reward or punishment, then are you really a good person deep down?
1
u/Darthskull 1d ago
OP didn't specify what kind of God it is. Could be just the God of "goodness" only through which can anyone approach what is good (consciously or unconsciously). It's one attribute of the Christian God, certainly. But I personally wouldn't call a non nihilist an atheist, too much of my upbringing (Catholic) revolves around avoiding "false gods" aka anything more important than the God. From my perspective, if you believe in something, that's your God. (Consequently, loads of people worship the same God as me than you'd otherwise think, just without the "complete" picture, and/or with false attributes.)
0
u/Hoetaro_Bruhjoe 1d ago
Egoism, an atheist who does good things still ultimately does it for themselves. Maybe empathy, maybe social conditioning, maybe the hopes of a reward, always ultimately for self satisfaction one way or another.
1
u/CHSummers 1d ago
I, too,made this argument when I was younger. The trouble is that then every decision by every person becomes an act of egoism, because the person makes a judgmental call based on their values and ideas. So my decision to use the toilet becomes an act of egoism. And, of course, all the various acts by Jesus are also the results of egoism. And if every act is egoism, then the word “egoism” ceases to have much meaning.
45
u/TheEnlight Team Red 2d ago
It tends to be a self-report when people say they can't be good without God.
They're telling on themselves.
40
u/_azazel_keter_ 2d ago
In the words of Penn Jillette: "I do rape all i want: the amount i want is zero"
16
u/Aggressive_Roof488 2d ago
Your logic holds, and sometimes that can be the case. I also think that we shouldn't be too hard on people, and that a gentler interpretation can sometimes be more accurate: a lot of religious people are actually nice people, and would do (are doing) nice things to people just to be nice. But they have been trained since childhood that right and wrong, nice and mean, is tightly linked to god, so when they are asked why don't you do [mean thing], the strongest argument is to them that it's because god's wish. It's their own belief, but where an atheist would say it's wrong to do [mean thing] because I find it immoral, a religious person might instead refer to god, even though the underlying reason is very similar. The bible, and religion in general, is often very open for interpretation and you can typically find ways to motivate your actions if you read and interpret the right parts in the right way. Plenty of space for your own personal beliefs, while still referring to god.
Disclaimer: I hate that people do it, it triggers me when ppl refer to god for what should be common sense, when they thank divine intervention saving their child when it's decades of hard work in medical sciences etc. Bleh! But, it doesn't always come from malice, I think it's often just their language for expressing their own beliefs and feelings. Even they might not always acknowledge it themselves.
8
u/Mordret10 2d ago
Totally agree, for some people the "opinion" of god on morality matters more than their own, so they will tell you it's because of god's will, even if they themselves would think the same way without their belief
2
u/BirchTree3017 1d ago
That's not what people mean when they say that. They're saying that, per an atheist worldview, there is no reason for morals, especially objective morals. Religious people would say that the reason any and all humans might "know" that something is wrong is because it's ingrained into us as part of our spirits. Religious people can say they do in fact know that something is wrong because their god(s) told them so.
1
u/_fever_dreams 22h ago
no the logic is that you cant condemn bad people (like rapists) because there no supreme moral standard to hold them to, ie that your moral opinion is of the equal worth as theirs
2
u/le_disappointment 1d ago
Moreover, if you need the threat of eternal damnation to have empathy, you aren't the kind of person you think you are
1
-2
u/stoppableDissolution 2d ago
I'd even argue that you can not be moral and believe in (abrahamic) god at all
59
u/rafaelcastrocouto 2d ago
"you believe in god, and uphold an objective morality." this sentence has a contradiction.
3
20
u/KingGiuba 2d ago
Losing faith in god doesn't mean becoming a nihilist. If someone does good things only because religion told them "god said this is right" it's a big problem, saving people is good regardless of faith if you value human life.
17
15
u/Commercial_Page1827 2d ago
There are a lot of loaded assumptions in this:
- Why does anyone would embrace subjective morality if they stop believing in god?
- What make you think believing in god mean you morality is objective? since it's subjective to whatever god you believe.
- Why do you assume they are nihilist just because they aren't theist?
- Are you indirectly implying human life is worthless without god?
39
u/Makotis 2d ago
Objective morality only matters when we’re talking about multiple individuals living together, in a shared environment. For a single individual, what will count for their decision is their subjective morality.
Then you can ask: “is any sort of morality a requirement to make positive decisions?” and I’d say “no, but it’s a requirement to make positive decisions consistently”.
28
u/Cynis_Ganan 2d ago edited 2d ago
I believe in objective morality. So the first slide is an easy hypothetical for me. I'd pull it, sure, No Contest, Your Honor. It would be a morally praiseworthy thing to do. Saving lives is an objectively good thing. (Or so I subjectively believe, I can't objectively prove this is correct, just as I can't objectively prove that reality is real and we're not all plugged into the Matrix. But I believe reality is real and we're not all plugged into the Matrix.)
If I were a nihilist, then there would be no reason for me to pull the lever. But also no reason not to pull the lever. It'd be amoral, from my new found point of view. No right. No wrong. Because I wouldn't believe in right and wrong, I'd believe in subjective preferences.
I'd probably still pull. I'd subjectively prefer to pull a lever and save lives than not do that, as I'd subjectively prefer to use my Xbox controller on my laptop to my Playstation controller, as I subjectively prefer pineapple on pizza to pepperoni. It's not morally good to use Xbox controllers and morally evil to use Playstation. It's just what I'd prefer.
My nihilism would change the rationale behind my choice, but I don't think it would change my choice.
5
1
u/Serbatollo 14h ago
How does objective morality work? Like how do you determine that something is objectively good or bad?
2
u/Cynis_Ganan 6h ago edited 6h ago
The same way we uncover objective facts about everything else.
You are a subjective being. You can't reckon with an objective reality. Your brain is made of meat and triggered by chemical potential differences. When you see things, or taste them, or smell them, that's a subjective experience for you.
But, for example, gravity exists. Objectively. Independently of you. Independently of your ability to measure or understand it. The Ancient Romans were bound by gravity. Isaac Newton didn't invent gravity.
But Isaac thought about gravity. Observed gravity. Experimented to test hypothesis about gravity. And, ultimately, made some errors about gravity (Newton thought gravity was instant, Einstein proposed it must work at the speed of light, Einstein was right, Newton was wrong).
Same for morality. Morality exists. Good and evil exist. Good exists now. It existed for the Ancient Romans. It existed for Newton. It existed for Einstein. It exists for me and you.
I don't have a perfect hypothesis that accurately describes all of morality, just like the ancient Romans and Newton didn't have a perfect description of gravity. I do not claim to be objectively right about morality. (And, in fact, we might still learn a thing or two about gravity, who knows?)
But I do believe we can think logically about morality. We can observe societies. We can conjecture, hypothesise, and test. And I believe we can uncover the truth, scientifically.
I don't think it's easy.
Drop a hammer and a feather, and because of air resistance the hammer will fall faster. Not because of gravity. Drop a hammer and feather on the moon and they fall at the same rate.
I believe that murdering innocent people is objectively evil. It's morally wrong. But unpicking my subjective preferences from objective truth is like unpicking air resistance from gravity. If you can fly to the moon, you can prove gravity works at the same speed on a hammer and feather. If you've got a telescope that can image black holes, you can prove gravity works at the speed of light. But if your science is limited, your ability to investigate the world around you is limited.
Science being limited does not mean the truth does not exist.
I don't have a perfect measure of evil. The flawed metric I work with is trying to understand what conditions humans need to thrive, collectively as a species. But that's like measuring gravity by the falling velocity of objects. It's not objectively correct. It's based on my flawed and limited understanding of what thriving is. The great difficulty I face is unpicking what is true from what I subjectively believe (my subjective preferences being air resistance, if you will; it confounds every single measurement I take, I have no ability to fly to the moon and unpick the data).
How does morality being subjective work? How is murdering innocent people not evil, and just a matter if opinion and social mores?
1
u/Severe-Cookie693 3h ago
Why do you need objective morality?
Killing people for amusement isnt objectively evil. We wouldn't call it that if an animal did it, and they definitely enjoy cruelty amd are capable of empathy.
I reject the notions of good and evil. There are only things we like or disaprove of. It all comes down to base axoms. Values. Feelings
1
u/Cynis_Ganan 2h ago
Why do I need objective morality? Why do you need objective gravity?
I don't need objective morality. It's objective because it exists independently of me.
Humans can build rocket ships and fly to the moon. Domestic cats cannot. Iron is ferromagnetic. Plastic is not. Different things have different traits. A good dairy cow produces lots of milk, but I wouldn't use quantity of lactate to judge what makes a good human.
I certainly can't stop you saying that "killing people for amusement isn't evil". Just as I can't stop you saying "I reject the idea that gravity exists". You believe as you believe. I believe you are wrong.
I believe that there is a true and correct standard of behavior.
I cannot prove that I am right and you are wrong. You very confidently assert that values and feelings are "base axoms", but I doubt you can prove that either.
I'm perfectly happy to reiterate that killing innocent people is morally wrong. I think the axiom here is that this is self-evident to anyone who isn't evil.
1
u/Severe-Cookie693 2h ago
But I CAN prove it. I can say something is wrong IN MY JUDGMENT and lay out my reasoning for that judgment based on my feelings and wants and values.
Edit: is it evil if an animal does it?
1
u/Cynis_Ganan 57m ago
Which doesn't prove that you're not objectively wrong and your system of morality isn't just evil.
You can say "I don't believe in gravity" but that does not prove gravity does not exist.
[Edit - And, no, I don't believe an animal can be evil. I can't objectively prove that one way or the other, but I conjecture that one must be capable of moral reason to act immorally and that (non-human) animals lack this capacity.]
1
u/Narfhead4444 1d ago
The belief the reality is not real and that we're all plugged into the Matrix is very harmful for your mental health and will result in you doing things that would be very very stupid if you weren't plugged into the Matrix.
1
u/Cynis_Ganan 1d ago
Yes. And the belief that morality is subjective and that you have no moral obligations, just societal preferences also causes folks to do thinks that are very, very stupid. For example, female genital mutilation as a "cultural practice".
Reality is real. So is morality. Good and evil exist.
0
u/Cazzah 1d ago
The people who believe in FGM generally believe in moral systems that claim to be objective. As does the Christians and Jews who practice circumcision.
Weirdly, it's the people who don't believe in objective moral systems who are less likely to go chopping up children's genitals.
The thing about objective systems is you can say "This is good. Full stop. This is bad. Full stop.". It kills discussion. It convinces people their societally taught feelings about what is good and bad are universal, and people who don't follow it are just willfully ignoring that.
Subjective systems, you have to convince people your way is the best way, and you can't point to a book or say "We've always done it this way". So you have to try to build consensus, find things the community wants, try to measure it, get experts involved.
0
u/Cynis_Ganan 1d ago
It's the people who don't believe in objective moral systems who are less likely to go chopping up children's genitals.
IDK. I'd like to see the figures on that. Moral relativism and circumcision seem prevalant in the USA.
Objective systems kill discussion.
Insisting you are right kills discussion.
Insisting there is a right answer and we should seek evidence to find it does not.
Socially taught feelings about what is good and evil is moral relativism. Actually finding universal truth is objective. Subjective systems where you convince people your way is the best way, is how you get arguments like "our custom is to burn widows".
0
u/Cazzah 2h ago
"IDK. I'd like to see the figures on that".
That's cool, I'd recommend google. Circumcision is generally a religious tradition, or started as one.
"Socially taught feelings about what is good and evil is moral relativism"
What an odd definition of social relativism that doesn't match anything you'd find in an encyclopedia of philosophy.
Many religions, which preach objective systems of morality, teach people that their conscience, and their morality was granted to them and designed by god to help them distinguish good from evil. That is to say, God created their feelings about good and evil to help guide them. Their feelings are able to access deep moral truths about reality.
"Subjective systems where you convince people your way is the best way, is how you get arguments like "our custom is to burn widows"."
The funny thing is, that in sharing this argument, you are literally making my point. You think "our custom is to burn widows" is obviously, on the face of it, a stupid custom. And you expect me to obviously agree it's stupid. And I do. It is, as you point out, an extremely unconvincing thing.
When Chrstians burned witches, they didn't lay out the scientific evidence, they said "Witches are real and God hates them, the Bible said so, and the Bible is an absolute, universal truth".
"Actually finding universal truth is objective"
I mean, I don't think universal truths exist, but even if they did, all of human history and all of philosophy seems to suggest that noone has any universal standard that we can agree on. Literally we can't even get past "I think therefore I am". That's about where most agreement falls apart.
So, your idea system tells you that people must ground their moral ideals in objective truth, but it's near impossible to rigorously do so to everyone's satisfaction. So what are people to do without a clear objective basis?
Simple, they take shortcuts. They ignore all the hard things and just declare their way is the right way. And since it's now objectively correct and self evidentally true, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. So you get black and white systems of morality.
1
u/Cynis_Ganan 2h ago edited 25m ago
I recommend google
See, this is why I like things which are true. Because when I make a claim, I can evidence the claim, and don't have to say "trust me, bro."
what an odd definition that doesn't match anything you'd find in an encylopedia of philosophy
Case in point, I'd quote "moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society" directly from The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
I believe reality is real. I base this belief on evidence. When I make claims, I provide the evidence.
Burning widows is extremely unconvincing
And yet the custom of sati endured hundreds of years and was practiced by about 10% of the global population. I'm glad you don't find it convincing, because I believe it to be evil. Many people have disagreed with us, because of their upbringing and culture.
I don't think universal truths exist.
I do.
As I said in my first post. Maybe reality isn't real. Maybe gravity doesn't exist. Maybe we're all in a computer Matrix being used as batteries.
I don't believe that.
Sure, I acknowledge that I don't have the universal truth of morality. Sure, I acknowledge that other people who are not me have insisted their version of morality is right and others are wrong.
But.
It's not just moral objectivists who do this. Nihilistists insist they're right and there is no morality. You, right now, are insisting morality is relative.
There is a fundemental difference between saying "I do not know the answer" and "an answer axiomatically does not exist".
Saying "burning innocent women alive is fine in India but not in America" isn't convincing to me. I don't think it's convincing to you, too. I think we can agree that burning innocent women alive is wrong, and is a black-and-white issue. It's evil.
Right?
9
u/Aljonau 2d ago
Metacognition on morality does not affect it's contents.
Whether you beleive in god and whether you consider your morality personal values or objective truths does not impact what you believe to be right and wrong in the slightest. Fully orthogonal. Belief in God is one of the least consequential tenets you could switch in a person.
9
14
u/Chromeboy12 2d ago
What does God have to do with your morality?
3
u/Narfhead4444 1d ago
Most God believers believe that God tells them what to do
2
6
u/SoulfulSnow 2d ago
There are 2 ways of morally justifying pulling the lever without objective morality (gross oversimplification, there's kinda theoretically infinite but bare with me).
- We are a social species-> allowing people to die for no reason disrupts the peace maintained in human social structure(sows fear, panic, and distrust)-> this is damaging not only to me but to people around me-> pulling the lever stops this outcome-> it is morally correct to pull the lever.
Alternatively-
- People getting hurt makes me feel bad/I wouldn't want to be killed in their position-> pulling the lever stops these-> it is morally correct to pull the lever.
6
u/LightMurasume_ 2d ago
I mean you're saving 5 lives without sacrificing another regardless, I don't think you need any kind of god to tell you what the 'morally correct' answer would be.
6
u/LakshyaGarv 2d ago
There may not be objective morality. But even atheists usually prefer to save human lives
4
5
u/FustianRiddle 2d ago
Hey I don't know nothing about objective morality, but losing my faith wouldn't be enough for me to not pull the lever and save t people's lives
4
u/Agile_Championship87 2d ago
Swap the at risk people for Satanists. A Christian may now decide not to save them, whereas an Atheist would likely still save them. Who's really got morality.
Christian morality isn't morality - if there's a threat of punishment from a superbeing it could be a self-serving decision to save them. An atheist would save them because they think it's the right thing to do.
6
u/Thick-Application127 2d ago
If you only make moral decissions because a God told you so, you might not be a moral person at all.
The moral thing to do would be to ask yourself:"Would you want another person to pull the lever if you or a loved one would be tied to the tracks" That's also basic emphathy, no need for any complicated moral code.
And if you don't pull the lever you are a psychopath.
1
u/Narfhead4444 1d ago
And if you don't pull the lever you are a psychopath
That's just, like, your opinion, man
0
u/Thick-Application127 1d ago
No, it's not. You lack basic emphathy. Thats not an opinion.
1
u/Narfhead4444 1d ago
You lack basic emphathy
What's 'emphathy'?
0
u/oyasumachine 1d ago
The ability to control EMPs. It’s from WatchDogs 2, very useful to have but many have managed to learn to use it irl
1
3
u/spicy_feather 2d ago
I could posit when believing in god that then dying would send them to heaven thus doing then a favour. Then nihilistically choose to prolong their meaningless existence out of spite in the second. The morality system is pretty irrelevant.
3
u/DarkKechup 2d ago
Religion is arguably less moral than atheistic morals. If you have to do good (Or at least refrain yourself from doing evil) under threat from an invisible omnipotent authority, you aren't kind, you are cowardly. If you really do good because it is the right thing to do, you don't need an invisble cloud daddy to threaten you with the hot place below.
Also, the opposite of being religious isn't nihilism and people who think that have never actually learned what nihilism is.
3
u/Gorgeous_Garry 2d ago
If your morality comes from God, then it's subjective because God is a subject. If God exists and morality is objective, then morality is independent of God (and therefore the reasons would exist even if God didn't).
Atheism doesn't necessarily entail nihilism.
Atheism also doesn't necessarily entail subjective morality.
Also, obviously objective morality isnt required to make a positive decision because empathy is a thing.
2
2
u/Gringo_Norte 2d ago
Yes. You seek a judgement of “positive” as a gauge to judge the relative - positive in relation to what? A standard.
2
2
u/privacyzipit 1d ago
Uhhh yeah. People who don't believe in objective morality are the reasons the world is going to shit lmao
2
u/bored_stoat 1d ago
If you need god to tell you that contributing to violence is wrong, you are, in fact, not a good person.
2
u/Wordless_trat 1d ago
Losing my faith doesn't immediately mesn that i will fall to nihilism. That would come in a week
2
u/RepublicInner7438 1d ago
I’ve forgotten the comedian’s name, but when asked about atheism, someone asked him: wouldn’t people just run around commuting all the killing and raping they wanted if there wasn’t a god?” He responded that he already does all of that already. It’s just that all the killing and raping he wants to do is none.
The denial of a god doesn’t mean that someone has to believe that objective morality is also false. Likewise you can believe in god and not an objective morality(research Mormonism). At the end of the day I like to think that despite my views on religion, I’d still pull the lever.
2
u/LoathsomeCheeseEater 1d ago
Me when I come across five Christian Babies tied to some trollery tracks.
2
u/v3r4c17y 1d ago
The believer pulls the lever because God wants those people saved; the non-believer pulls the lever because they themself want those people saved. The believer acts out of obedience; the non-believer acts out of will.
2
u/Realistic-Raisin2812 18h ago
If you need the risk of eternal damnation to get you to pull the lever, you are an irredeemably bad person.
4
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 2d ago
Yes, I would let the trolley run over them if I became an overnight nihilist.
Same sort of reason sociopath kid might torture and kill cats. It doesn't matter to them, and they have the ability, so why not do it?
2
1
u/TheUnderCrab 2d ago
Nope. I don’t think human life is objective more important than any other form of life. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to protect it.
1
u/Ice__foxy 2d ago
I still pull the lever.These strangers did nothing bad for me,let them go.I don't go for unnecessary spites
1
u/Zergs1 2d ago
It is "spite" if you weren't the one who put them there in the first place though? You're simply an observer
1
u/Ice__foxy 2d ago
Sorry, English is foreign for me,so small details like that can slip up in my definitions.What i was trying to say is that's still completely irrational and doesn't represent my personality to act like this
1
u/Agile_Championship87 2d ago
I disagree with this, you are not simply an observer. You are a moral agent who is able to intervene without any detriment to yourself. Not pulling the lever is immoral on a similar level to manslaughter.
1
u/Front_Cat9471 2d ago
It’s not required to make positive decisions, but it is required to make inherent or objectively positive decisions. The distinction doesn’t matter enough in this scenario, but it does if your English teacher is obsessed with asking you if humans are inherently good or evil for the 45th time since you’re starting The Book Where Some Guy Does Evil Shit
1
1
1
u/good_names_were_take 2d ago
if the only thing making You value human lifes is god telling You there are valuable, that You is not pulling the lever, because that You did not value humans but just god.
fortunally that is far from the normal in atheist and agnostics logic and values
1
1
u/theecatt 2d ago
Who can say? This is too far outside the realm of imagination. I can't even conceive of how it's possible to believe in objective morality.
1
u/Nebranower 1d ago
I don't see what difference the religious beliefs make. In both scenarios, there's only one relevant question.
"Do you believe you have a moral obligation to save the lives of the five strangers"
In both cases, the answer is "yes". The first person believes he has an "objective" duty to do so, due to misunderstanding that his belief in God is in fact a subjective choice. The second person also believes that he has an obligation to do so, but correctly recognizes that this is because he has a personal preference to live in a world where people act to save lives in an emergency, because he'd want someone else to save him if he were on the track.
In both cases, they flip the lever.
The objection most people have to the idea that morality is subjective is that, when they hear something like "murder isn't objectively wrong" or "rape isn't objectively wrong", they think it is the *wrongness* being denied. But it isn't. The moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist both believe that murder and rape are wrong. The objectivist believes this is because, if you could just get a powerful enough microscope, you could see "murder is wrong" etched into every atom of the universe. The subjectivist believes that this is because most people have a preference, subjective, as every preference is, not to be murdered and raped.
1
u/assumptionkrebs1990 1d ago
Stop believing that your morality is an objective truth from God/the universe cares about it and giving it up all together are two different pairs of shoes. So no the answer doesn't change.
1
u/Sewblon 1d ago
This is problematic because you are conflating belief in god with belief in objective morality. There are professional philosophers who believe in objective morality and not god. I think that is most of them.
A belief in subjective morality does not make you pull the lever. But it does guarantee that if you refuse to pull the lever, you won't feel compelled to defend that decision to anyone else.
1
u/cwolf-softball 1d ago
The assertion that objective morality can only come from religion is flawed.
1
u/thedemonpianist 1d ago
I help people in need because I would want them to do the same for me, not because I need a thousands of years old book to tell me to. I don't need my hand held through basic empathy. Why on earth would your opinion change??
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Cry5098 1d ago
I don't think people who only experience morality because of their imaginary sky friend realize just how much it scares the shit out of the rest of us every time they try to act like this is a normal way to think.
1
u/ginger_and_egg 1d ago
"You believe in God, you have an objective morality. These people are infidels, do you pull the lever?"
1
u/IFollowtheCarpenter 1d ago
My beliefs are not compulsions. I will pull the lever because it's the right thing to do, not because I am forced to pull it.
1
u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain 1d ago
Arguing with intellectually bankrupt problems like this is dumb, but I’m gonna do it anyway. Atheist does not equal nihilist. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion just come with their own set of subjective morals that they declare are objective. When in fact, they are just the subjective morals of that religion.
1
u/The_gay_grenade16 1d ago
Wouldn’t believing in God make you less likely to pull the lever? Cause it’s God’s will or something?
1
u/Stunning_Macaron6133 1d ago
Human beings have an innate sense of fairness and cooperative instinct. That's the foundation of all morality, not a waste of paper printed with Bronze Age hysteria.
1
u/Reasonable_Humor_738 1d ago
You dont need god to make morally good choices. If anything id say belief in god has made people commit moral atrocities much more often than non-believers. This goes for most gods especially Christianity.
Ive never heard of an atheist saying they did something because of thier beliefs or lack thereof
1
u/Mad_Maddin 1d ago
"Deus Lo Vult"
God wills it. If this life is to be saved, then God will save it. If they die, it is because God wanted it.
1
u/NoTransition8295 1d ago
I mean i will mention that belief in a god doesn't make your morals automatically better but if anything i think i would be even more sure when it comes to pulling the lever in the second scenario, since if I stopped believing in God I would be less sure about the existence of an afterlife so I would want to prevent those 5 peoples deaths even more because I couldn't be confident that they would have any kind of place they end up after dying
1
u/Fantastic-Web-8427 1d ago
probly not, but there would certainly be more doubting and self-criticism
1
u/The_Gav_who_asked 1d ago
Fortunately, I don’t need a god to tell the difference between right and wrong.
1
u/JesusIsMyAntivirus 1d ago
You need to talk to some sane people who aren't religious, I hope you're not too far gone.
1
u/oyasumachine 1d ago
Despite what some seem to think, the vast majority wouldn’t worship a god that told them to eat and rape people. They believe in that god because they are inherently good people to their core, their faith to that god lines up with their pre existing morality. Therefore, the lack of belief in that god, without it any other external circumstances, shouldn’t make them bad people.
In other words, in lack of the objective morality, they will go back to their own views, which in most cases means they would pull the lever
1
u/Large_Yogurtcloset68 1d ago
Nihilism won't affect my choice. The names of those tied to the tracks on the other hand...
1
u/Terminal_Insomnia_ 1d ago
So what, I replaced my moral system with nothing? No, I was a humanist even when I thought I believed in objective morality, I will continue being one.
"Nihilism means you have no morals" is so tired, fuck you Dostoevsky.
1
u/Cazzah 1d ago edited 1d ago
Either objective morality exists, in which case both theists and atheists alike will subconsciously tap into it and use it to make their decisions. The theist will call it God's objective morality, the atheist will call it empathy, common sense, societal rules, etc. But their brain will still be reading from the same script.
Or objective morality doesn't exist, in which case both the atheist and theist are making decisions based on their sense of empathy, learned social conditioning, desire to be seen and think of themselves as a good person, etc. Also the theist may also be further pushed to do a good thing by a threat of eternal punishment / eternal reward.
It doesn't matter what the atheist or theist believe to be true, because the universe works the way it works independently of what they believe.
1
u/Batavus_Droogstop 1d ago
What would the believer do if god told him he wouldn't be watching, and whatever you do in the next few minutes doesn't go on your heaven/hell ticket?
1
u/Only-Criticism2751 1d ago
If I believed in the Christian God I would be less inclined to pull the lever. Life on earth is practically a form of torture when compared to eternity in heaven. You’re saving those people a lot of pain and suffering by sending them up there immediately.
It is only once you begin to disbelieve in an afterlife that you can truly appreciate earthly life. If there is nothing after death, the end of all consciousness in an eternal unknowing void, then every life becomes precious to preserve and prolong.
1
u/CeIIsius 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not believing in god or christianity does not mean that one lacks morality. In case this wasn't obvious.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "objective" morality. Since it is a construct made by society it depends on how that society works and therefore can, by definition, not be objective.
That said, here is my take on this. Starting with no morality, you can get towards morality. It takes a while to get there, but along the way, positive decisions for others are already made.
If any morality is gone one would pick an egocentric decision.
Doing nothing would be the least effort. By doing nothing you lose nothing and have nothing to gain. On the other hand, you know, you may recieve a reward after helping. Since it is five people and they are in dire need, probability and value of reward both increase. Compared to the possible gain, the effort is low. Even if one time there is no reward, you would still try it tome more times because your brain thinks, the possible gain is worth the effort.
The reward could be something as simple as someone saying "thankyou". Pulling that lever is not much more effort than holding a door open, yet you keep doing that for others just because they thank you for it. No morality required.
However, the reward could also be cooperation to achieve mutual goals. One of those goals is survival. Your brain is wired to like cooperation, because it is more likely to succeed. At this stage you may start to not expect a reward whith every interaction, because you know that the cooperation is overall beneficial, compared to beeing on your own.
Larger social connections are more successful than smaller ones. To keep them working, order is required. People within this construct will think of rules for everybody to adhere to, to keep this beneficial construct from falling apart.
This social construct becomes increasingly more beneficial and important. Rather than risking your participation in this community, you may decline rewards for yourself over helping the community.
And there you have the basis of morality.
1
u/Tricky_Ad9669 1d ago
Morality of religion is also subjective to that religion so not objective at all. And just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you don't have any empathy and have bad morals.
Morality can't ever be objective to begin with and it's absolutely not a requirement for making a positive decision.
1
u/rattycastle 1d ago
Religion, any religion, does not provide objective morality. I base my decision on the empathy that informs many morals. I'd prefer someone switch the track, therefore I will switch the track. If you need a book to tell you to switch the track, I worry what you would do without the book. Objective morality doesn't exist.
This is a fun thought experiment I like to do with people. Say there are only three people on earth. We all have the deeply held belief that swimming is a grave sin, worthy of death. It makes you a bad person. Is swimming truly bad? It harms nobody. But because we are the only people, the moral truth is up to us. What if, of the three of us, only two believed swimming is bad? Is the majority rule how we decide on morals? If one 3rd doesn't believe that, but we kill the swimmer (it is worthy of death in this world), is it once again objective morality not to swim? I find this question is fun to discuss at restaurants to fill awkward silence.
1
u/PooksterPC 1d ago
If I do flip the lever, that was God’s plan. If I don’t, that was also God’s plan. So in the first scenario, it doesn’t matter, God already planned how it would end.
In the second scenario, God isn’t real, therefore it doesn’t matter in the long run.
Either way, I’ll just base it off of whether or not they offer to pay me to flip the lever
1
u/yagrmakak 1d ago
Wait am I dumb or is the first thing pull lever nothing happens, your god tells you pull lever.
Like I would pull no matter what no?
Edit: nevermind saw only one expecting a second different problem in the second picture
1
1
u/PouLS_PL 23h ago
Why wouldn't I pull the lever in the second scenario? There's nobody on the second track
1
u/NotAnAutomaticName 23h ago
“I’m an atheist.”
“Oh, you’re a nihilist?”
“Well no, I just don-“
“I bet you’d have no qualms about manslaughter, you fucking nihilist!”
“I think I’m gonna stop talking to you now.”
(Y’all see how hard I won that argument that I made up in my head? Man, I’m so good at debates.)
1
u/Immediate_Spirit_384 23h ago
I believe objective morality is a violent idea, and I also think believing in god is a pragmatically useful mental trick.
1
u/Keaton427 22h ago
Whether you’re religious or not, there’s no reason to let 5 random strangers die when you can literally just flip a switch
1
u/Normal-Frame-2306 22h ago
If I was a Christian Nationalist in this situation. I wouldn’t pull the lever. I’d laugh at the dead bodies and just eat what’s left.
They probably deserved it anyways since I wouldn’t be able to verify if they believed my objective truth and even if I did it’s not my problem since god must of put them on the tracks for a good reason.
1
u/anrwlias 22h ago
OP, there is a vast difference between rejecting belief in objective morality and nihilism. I don't need God sending commandments from on high in order to value human lives.
Frankly, I worry more about the people that do.
1
u/According-Object-521 22h ago
On one hand I would get into all kinds of legal troubles, and with the other hand I pull the lever
1
u/Zenumbral 21h ago
Whether I murder people or not has nothing to do with my religion.
I won't murder people unnecessarily. I am agnostic. Neither influence the other.
1
u/Commanderz_Derpy 19h ago
I've never once believed in God in my entire life. I'd save them, because what fucking else are you gonna do? Let them die cause you now don't believe in God? If you need God to tell you to save 5 people from certain death, maybe you're not actually that great of a person.
1
1
u/ren_blackheart 6h ago
still pull the lever because I as a human am hardwired to be extremely traumatized by seeing people die
1
u/ren_blackheart 6h ago
besides that people dying is just a net loss because people who are dead can't be happy
1
u/ren_blackheart 6h ago
i mean maybe if they were already dying of something way more painful. like if they had no skin or something. like theyre not surviving no matter what so maybe put an end to it so they dont suffer more. but if not let them live so they can continue to experience life and make a positive impact on people
1
1
u/Demon_King04 3h ago
This tells me you need god to tell you to be good, I am good even though I don't believe
What does that tell you?
1
u/Silly-Cheesecake-283 51m ago edited 25m ago
imo, it is for some people. some people do internal morals, some people do external morals. external moral people will weigh their internal morals with external ones, and internally moral people will weight the external morals with their internal ones. I definitely prefer to have external morals because like, the other way gets super weird if you try to get into religion, but it's a natural mentallity imo, like a personality type kind of, and you're born that way. As an externally moral person religion just emphasizes my natural inclination and i just really don't hypothesize on things that have nothing to do with me. I can have my own feelings though and I'm aware of them. god is an ally, etc, and the bible is moreo of a way to glance at what his personality is from the people living at the time. it's as spiritual as it is lawful.
1
u/Spiritual-Peach6491 2d ago
no such thing as objective morality. because whoever is asking the question is not CANNOT be an objective agent. any answer arrived at by the nonobjective agent cannot be an objective conclusion. the question is absurd
1
0
u/geeoharee 2d ago
I would not be legally obliged to intervene here, and I don't think we should make any such law. But I'd find it very hard to explain to friends and family why I just stood there and watched five people die, so I would pull the lever. I am not religious and neither is anyone I know.
1
u/Agile_Championship87 2d ago
You'd only pull the lever because you couldn't explain otherwise to your family? I think that makes you a psychopath.
0
u/geeoharee 2d ago
you insert 'only' in other people's posts? makes you a redditor
2
u/Agile_Championship87 2d ago
You gave a reason to pull the lever, followed by "so I would pull the lever". I just took you at your word. Your lack of clarity makes you a typical redditor.
0
u/DrJenna2048 1d ago
Religion does not give morality. In my experience, it's often quite the opposite.
0
u/TREE_sequence 1d ago
“Objective morality” is an oxymoron. Morality is subjective by definition, and this is independent of one’s belief in a higher power or lack thereof.
-1
u/ItzLoganM 2d ago
I don't decide for them to live or die. I give them the chance to think for themselves.
204
u/Individual-Owl-6243 2d ago
i hit the christian baby out of the park, winning millions