Can Murder be Wrong if there is no God?

To jump in on a discussion from about 10 months ago... :-)

I'll just add that I think the questions we ask are just as important as the answers we seek. I don't see the question as being, "If God did not exist would murder still be wrong?" but rather, "What does an inherent/internal sense of right and wrong actually prove?" To that, I would say that it is the very existence of morality itself that necessitates the need for a moral lawgiver i.e. God. For a complete explanation, please see my hub entitled "Where do you get your morality from? It can’t be God!" Debunked (A Response)". Mitch--our hubs pair very well together. :-)

Hi,

You seem to be assuming ~ and maybe I am mistaken ~ that something could, indeed, be inherently wrong, if morality comes from God.

I am saying that this could, indeed, be true, if it is God, who gives us our sense of morality, but, since there is no proof that God exists, then that is questionable.

And, if we are assuming that this is God, as described in the Bible, then it is not only questionable, but it simply cannot be so ~ not based on the example set for us.

I still wonder ~ if it were proven that God did not exist, then would you suddenly decide that murder was ok?

Also, why is it that people feel that murder is inherently wrong? Where does this feeling come from, if not because people / society etc has decided that it is the case.

After all, just because people are of the opinion that murder is inherently wrong does not mean that it isn't.

If God's authority can make it inherently wrong, then why not the authority of the huge number of people, who believe this to be true?

I am not saying that murder is or is not inherently wrong, because it can be argued different ways, of course, but I am just looking at the fact that most people feel that it is and that this 'opinion' must hold some weight in the answer to your question.

If every single person in the world thought that it was inherently wrong, would it still be just an opinion?

Why would a Christian belief in / opinion of God's say-so make any real difference?

Hi :)

I haven't re-read all of this, so I may repeat myself ~ but, no, murder is not just wrong because someone else says that it is wrong, or because the law says that it is wrong.

What makes it wrong comes from various 'places' ~ society, family, conscience, etc, and it is finally decided in one's own brain.

Is it possible that some people would think that murder was ok? ~ Obviously, yes, largely, I think, because of the words that we use to excuse our behaviour.

Men kill other men, daily, but it is not always classed as 'murder'. Sometimes it's war; sometimes it's capital punishment; sometimes it's human sacrifice (look at Abraham), etc, etc.

You say that knowledge of what is wrong has to come from 'a higher power, an ultimate law giver'. Well, if such a power exists, then it seems possible that 'he' gave us our consciences, so, without knowing whether or not God exists that is all that I can say on the matter. Maybe knowledge of right and wrong comes from a higher power and maybe it doesn't.

Certainly the Bible condones some horrific behaviour and it describes God encouraging, condoning and committing, murder. Thus, if God tells us that murder is wrong, then it is not via the Bible and it cannot be God as described in the Bible.

If it were suddenly proven ~ to your satisfaction ~ that God did not exist, would you suddenly decide that murder was ok?

Murder seems to be wrong for most people. I don't see that it takes a higher power to make it so. Turek does and I take issue with his ideas and his reasons.

By the way, I wrote a hub on morality ~ related to Turek's ideas. :)

Hi again :)

I suppose that I could ask whether you, personally, think that killing is wrong.

Inherent or not, most normal decent people would think that murder was wrong.

Would those people change their minds, according to whether [they believed] God existed or not?

Would that really change anything about the act of murder?

Killing is not wrong because a made up guy said so.

Do you see animals going aroung killing their own species because they can? No because it's natural instinct not to get rid of something that is usefull. People that kil have some psycological problems. But the point of surviving is not killing your own species

Simple answer for an overused retarded question

Yes, Mitch, I agreed with you that we could say that nothing was 'inherently wrong'.

However, we do seem to have a moral compass, which tells us right from wrong ~ so, maybe we do have the ability to sense if something is inherently wrong, after all.

I am suggesting that this is a possibility; I am not saying that it is something that I am sure of.

I just don't think that God is relevant to the discussion. God is not the only reason for doing right.

Christians would, no doubt, disagree with me ~ but it would be a boring world, if we all agreed with each other :)

Hi Mitch :)

Yes, I think that we are basically saying similar things but, though I may concede that inherent "wrongness" does not exist, I do not agree that inherent "wrongness" can only exist if God exists ~ which is what I think you are saying.

Basically, I am agreeing with you on certain matters, Mitch :)

'If there is no transcendant law that superceeds man's laws, then nothing can be inherently wrong.'

~ Yes, I suppose that could be considered true.

'If there is no transcendant law, why not murder to get what you want.'

~ Well, yes, and some people do ~ but most do not, regardless of their religious beliefs.

What I believe is that the majority of people must have a sense of morality, since societies, world-wide, pass many laws which are, or seem to be, based on principles and morals.

Murder is, generally, considered to be wrong.

People, generally, seem to consider that it is inherently wrong. It feels wrong.

And why can't we talk about how it makes us feel?

Maybe our feelings are right at the crux of the matter.

Many Christians seem to think that there is no morality without God. I disagree. I think that we have something amazing called our 'conscience', which helps us to deal with right and wrong.

Our conscience makes us 'feel' good or bad about certain behaviour.

So how we ~ ie the majority of people ~ feel about something may, indeed, be the decider about whether something might be considered inherently wrong.

Social acceptance ~ based on our gut feelings, or consciences ~ may indeed be the foundation for right and wrong.

In other words, how we 'feel' about right and wrong may be more important than whether 'we' accept God's existence.

Yes, social norms can change at any time, but so can religious beliefs ~ and it is those religious beliefs which make Christians think that there is no morality without God.

Just because there may not be a 'transcendant law', supervised by God, does not mean that people are going to turn into murderers.

You ask 'why not murder to get what you want...apart from the legal punishment what is the problem?'

I can't get to grips with this question, because, to me, there would be a huge problem.

I actually think that this must be one of the huge divides between certain Christians and atheists + agnostics ~ the belief that, without God, people would turn into monsters.

Most atheists would never consider saying that there is no God, so why not murder to get what you want.

We are looking at two very different mindsets here.

Whether or not there is God, it is a good thing for us all to get along together. It makes life pleasanter. It makes us all feel better. Society works better.

Our sense of morality ~ our conscience ~ tells us that murder is bad, so it makes us feel bad. Most people don't want to do it and don't approve of it.

Of course, laws change and ideas on what is right and wrong may change. I accept that and believe that this is a complex issue, with no truly right or wrong answer.

We can philosophise on whether there is any action, which is inherently wrong and / or we can look at real life and consider whether there is any action, which is generally considered to be inherently wrong.

For most people, I think that murder ~ murder of innocents, anyway ~ would come into that category.

And I don't think that this has anything to do with laws that may be found in the Bible ~ especially as those laws are often contradicted by descriptions of God's supposed behaviour.

Maybe how we feel and what we think doesn't count, but why shouldn't it ~ and what does?

Hi again Mitch :)

You wrote : 'If murder is inherently wrong, it is wrong no matter who believes it...'

Yes, I agree with that definition.

So, how is it decided, or discovered, what is moral and what is immoral?

In most cases, someone tells us what is right and what is wrong ~ teachers, parents, priests, judges, etc.

But when they are thus informing us, are they telling us what they think is wrong; what society has decided is wrong; or what is a permanent, essential attribute of 'wrongness' [that is the Oxford definition of 'inherent']?

Children learn right and wrong from their elders ~ but do they also have a sense of some activities not just being disliked or outlawed, but of being 'inherently wrong'?

Our reaction to murder is usually distress, fear, sadness, trauma, anger, disgust, hatred, vengefulness, etc.

Most of us seem be born with an innate feeling and belief that murder is wrong.

At least, I would like to think that most of us are born with that feeling, and that it would be a natural gut instinct ~ a response from our consciences.

I would like to think that, but, of course, I do not know.

However, since most societies seem to outlaw murder, then this feeling ~ that murder is wrong ~ must be common to most of humanity.

It could indicate that murder is not seen as wrong because it is illegal, but, rather, that it is illegal because it is immoral.

The illegality of murder would then stem from, and reflect, its inherent immorality.

Of course, some laws reflect morals and principles, and others simply benefit the specific society, so it still isn't that simple.

And I think that there are levels of murder. I think that most people would consider the torture, rape and murder of a child to be wrong, for example. But what if the parent of that murdered child sought revenge and killed her attacker? That would be classed as a crime ~ murder! But some would consider murder acceptable, and not 'wrong', in such circumstances. So, yes, the question of whether murder is inherently wrong is not simple one to answer.

But you asked something more:

'Can Murder be Wrong if there is no God?' / 'Can murder be considered inherently WRONG if there is no God nor His revealed truth in the Bible?'

I think that the arguments given still count.

I, or we, may think that murder must be inherently wrong, but, once we look closer, we find that it is actually a very difficult question to answer. And I think that this stands, whether or not God exists / whether or not people believe in God / whether or not people belong to a religion ~ Christian or otherwise.

Believers may decide to accept the commandment not to kill, and they may think that God has classified murder as inherently wrong, but, basically, that is not so very different from deciding that murder is wrong for any other reason ~ eg that most people in the world believe it to be wrong. It is just making a decision, based upon our background / education / culture / society / etc.

And, since the Bible contains both God's commandment not to murder and also a number of horrible killings, supposedly on God's part, then I would say that the Bible is not a reliable source of what is morally right or wrong, anyway.

So I would say that some murders, at least, feel inherantly wrong to me ~ and may feel inherantly wrong to others ~ and may, therefore, be inherantly wrong ~ but I couldn't be sure, because our feelings may or may not be innate ~ and may, alternatively, be based on culture, upbringing, etc.

I would also agree that 'if murder is inherently wrong, then it is wrong no matter who believes it' ~ and I would say that this is correct, regardless of whether God exists / whether the Bible states that it is wrong / whether people believe in God / etc, etc.

Hi Mitch :).

I'll have to get back to you on this. I was just about to post a complicated response, when it all disappeared into the ether :)

Sorry!

Hello Mitch :)

Yes ~ an interesting discussion :)

'Survival of the fittest' simply means that creatures, which fit well into their environment, are more likely to survive. Thus, a green frog on a green leaf is less likely to be eaten by a predator than a red frog on a green leaf. Though the poor red frog may get killed, I don't see any real link with murder and morality there.

And 'Darwinism' ~ or, rather, evolutionary theory, based on Darwin's discoveries ~ is not an atheistic worldview. Plenty of Christians accept it.

Either way, neither atheism, nor scientific evolutionary theory, encourage murder or immorality.

As for what makes something 'wrong' or 'immoral', that is a very interesting subject. I am sure that many philosophers must have mulled it over.

Maybe it's different for different people. I think that it probably is, because, basically, it depends on how one was brought up.

And I actually think that, in many cases, it is, indeed, related to something being considered 'personally repugnant'.

However, it is also more than that. I find the idea of eating offal personally repugnant ~ but is it morally wrong? ~ Not to most people. However, people who believe that killing animals is as bad as killing humans might, indeed, think so.

I have noticed that many Christians believe that morality only exists because of Christianity, and the existence of God.(Other faiths may have parallel opinions.) I know a lovely, kind and virtuous lady, who is convinced that she is only moral because she is Christian. I really do not understand that attitude. Is a decent person going to turn into a monstrous torturing murderer because she changes her mind about the existence of God, or Jesus?? I doubt it.

Interestingly, most atheists, agnostics and doubters I know agree with me, that it is perfectly possible to be moral without religion ~ just as it is perfectly possible to be immoral with religion.

What is immoral? ~ It is usually what society and individuals deem it to be. It depends, as I said, on how we were brought up. Maybe we are told by our parents, by the lawmakers and by religious leaders, as well, but is that the same as something being 'inherantly wrong'? ~ Probably not.

I do think the closest we come to 'knowing' that something is 'inherantly wrong' is that 'gut feeling' we get about things ~ I think that this is our consciences at work.

I am agnostic. The world is an amazing place, so I would not rule out a power or intelligence that could be termed 'God'. However, I do not belong to any religion and I do not believe that 'God' is as decribed in the Bible. But I do have very strict moral standards and find the idea of murder absolutely abhorrent.

No, 'inherently wrong' may not be the same as 'personally repugnant', but it doesn't have to be related to religious belief, either.

Of course, if someome believes in God, and believes that God has commanded them not to murder, then they may perceive murder as inherantly wrong or immoral, as defined by God, or, alternatively they ay decide that it is illegal, as determined by God's laws. Either way, it is really as decided by their religious beliefs.

Others may decide that murder is wrong for other reasons.

Hi Mitch :)

I think that you are probably right, that in certain circumstances, certain people will accept that murder is not inherantly wrong ~ but I do not think that this has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

People who believe in God can convince themselves that certain killings are ok ~ eg in wars.

And, yes, the fact that Christianity has been misused does not mean it is wrong.

Equally, though, if some aspects of 'atheistic neo-Darwinism' have been misused, then it doesn't make atheism or 'Darwinism' wrong, either.

Atheism is not immoral and evolutionary theory certainly isn't immoral ~ it's just science.

I accept your own definitions of 'illegal' and 'immoral', but they are not mine.

I think that we can have morality without God or religion. Murder could be legalised, but I would still consider it immoral. I think that most people would feel the same ~ I certainly hope so.

However, if murder became legal, I don't think that atheists would be commiting any more killings. There would be no logic to that.

I have discussed the issue, before, as to whether 'Murder, or anything, can not be deemed universally and inherently wrong', and yes, I do think that you have a point ~ but I think that your point stands regardless of whether or not God exists.

Hi :)

Interesting question.

Is murder inherantly wrong?

Generally, I feel that it is.

Life is such a precious thing that it seems totally wrong to take it away from someone ~ without very good reason.

Of course, people kill for a variety of reasons that are not classed as murder ~ in wars, for example, and in self-defence.

In some societes, babies are left out to die, and in others, they are not allowed to be born.

It seems that society decides what kind of killing is acceptable and what is not ~ and, of course, religion is part of society.

Social ideals inform religious belief and religious belief informs social norms.

The Bible has some examples of horrific killings, which would be classed as murder in modern society, but which were, supposedly, agreed by God:

~ The Amalekite slaughter

~ The killing of Job's family

~ The killing of David's child

~ The order that any insolent son should be stoned to death

~ The order that any girl, who could not prove herself a virgin at marriage, should be stoned to death.

~ Etc.

The Bible assumes that God ordered, or condoned, all of this, but, of course, the writers may well be wrong.

However, since the Bible is the only real authority that we apparently have regarding God, then it appears that God condones murder, rather than forbidding it ~ in spite of the commandment.

But, if we disregard the horrors that can be found in both the Bible and in Christian history, and just look at whether morality is possible without a belief in God, which is what, I think, this question is really about, then yes, of course there can be morality without Christian or other beliefs.

Morality is about respecting others, not harming others, being fair to others, etc, etc, and respecting oneself, etc. People can do that without a belief in God. Many do. Most people have a conscience.

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean by 'Atheistic neo-Darwinism' and how has it 'justified the killing of millions of people around the world'?

Atheism and a belief in evolution do not make people immoral or into mass murderers. As you say, Christian beliefs have been to blame for some terrible atrocities, so atheists cannot be blamed for such ills.

I am not aware of anyone particularly killing to 'fulfill the mindset of survival of the fittest'. 'Survival of the fittest' does not mean this. (I have written about this in my evolution hubs.)

People who believe in God can be immoral and commit murders and people who do not believe in God can be very moral and peaceful.

Generally, societies make murder illegal ~ and most people agree with that and have no desire to kill their fellows. Sadly murder still happens, because there are people with problems of one sort or another.

Yes, murder can be wrong ~ is wrong ~ with or without God ~ but, in certain circumstances, it seems that it can be accepted as right ~ again with or without God.

I don't think that the existence of ~ or belief in ~ God makes murder inherantly wrong; I think that it simply is inherantly wrong.