What do you think?
Rate this book
Morality Without God? (Philosophy in Action) Reprint edition by Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2011) Paperback
Some argue that atheism must be false, since without God, no values are possible, and thus "everything is permitted." Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that God is not only not essential to morality, but that our moral behavior should be utterly independent of religion. He attacks several core that atheists are inherently immoral people; that any society will sink into chaos if it is becomes too secular; that without morality, we have no reason to be moral; that absolute moral standards require the existence of God; and that without religion, we simply couldn't know what is wrong and what is right. Sinnott-Armstrong brings to bear convincing examples and data, as well as a lucid, elegant, and easy to understand writing style. This book should fit well with the debates raging over issues like evolution and intelligent design, atheism, and religion and public life as an example of a pithy, tightly-constructed argument on an issue of great social importance.
Paperback Bunko
First published January 1, 2009
30 people are currently reading
382 people want to read
About the author
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
33 books45 followersWalter Sinnott-Armstrong (born 1955) is an American philosopher specializing in ethics, epistemology, neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is a Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
July 13, 2017
Walter Sinnot-Armstrong argues in this book that the basis of morality can be found without god, as the subtitle states. In addition to this he argues for why morality based on god, in particular the Christian god, can not form a basis for morality. His basis for morality without god involves the concept of harm. Those who harm another, or fails to prevent a harm when possible, commits a moral wrong.
After he sets the stage, he presents that there is no factual evidence that atheists or secular societies are any less moral than Christians or Christian societies. From there he goes on to give a version of objective morality based on the concept of harm as stated above. After making his case for a workable morality without god, he confronts god based morality, and shows the problems with it and how it is not a workable solution. He ends up discussing what more needs to be investigated in coming to a better secular morality.
Here are some comments I made at particular points in reading the book. Numbers in brackets [] are pagination in the Kindle edition.
[21] After Sinnot-Armstrong mentions the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden, I thought there is a form of human evolution here. Human beings evolved the capability to obtain moral knowledge. When humans evolved from some form of ape to humans moral knowledge became possible in the reality of real life, not the made up biblical kind.
[52] “Theists use this popular slogan [‘If God is dead, everything is permitted’] to assert that nothing can be objectively morally wrong if God does not exist. The question, in short, is whether atheism entails nihilism, which is the denial of all real moral values, duties, and obligations.” Even supposing moral subjectivity, atheism does not necessarily entail nihilism.
[56-7] “Everyone I know—whether theist or atheist or agnostic—agrees that rape is morally wrong.” The theist is questionable on this if he or she really accepts the Bible as the word of god. The Old Testament does not condemn rape, at least not in all cases, and the New Testament is silent on it. So, the Christian can believe that rape is not morally wrong, at least in some cases. And, marital rape occurs in some Christian marriages. The fact that most theists believe rape is morally wrong is because they feel it is, not that they are command not to.
[59-60] “Almost everyone agrees that death, pain, and disability are bad.” But, the reason for this does not have to be an objective standard. People when they think that these things are bad, usually have feelings associated with this thinking. Matter of fact this kind of thinking without feeling may not lead to moral behavior, and it maybe that the feelings actually lead to the thought. A reason for people to believe these things are bad is that they, in most cases, would not want them occurring to themselves or are in psychological pain when they observe these situations. So, it is possible that morality does not depend, or at least initially, on an objective standard. I think that it is moral feelings that lead to objectivity in morality.
[62] “Certainly each item [in a list of harms] needs to be specified more precisely.” This and other statements he makes leads me to an admire his sense of grayness.
[85] “Call that harm-based core of morality ‘shared morality,’ because it is shared with theists, who agree that rape, murder, theft, child abuse and neglect, and so on are morally wrong.” However, some Christian parents abuse their children when administering punishment because they believe the Bible sanctions severe punishment. So, if moral feelings are the basis of morality, how is it that some people do not see some acts that most people consider to be harmful to be immoral? It is because feelings can be overridden by thoughts, especially thoughts that are repeatedly reinforced by others and supposedly sacred texts.
[131] Speaking of group discussion as an aid to making moral decisions, he writes: “An example should help to bring these abstractions down to earth. This case illustrates a real problem that hospital ethic committees have faced many times and that has been controversial in the past.” Never mind the specifics of his example, the point I wish to make is that few of us have the benefit of a committee discussion when faced with a moral decision, and certainly not when the decision is urgent. So, while hospital ethics committees are useful in their domain, as a general approach to finding out the differing amount of harm among moral choices is not much use.
[150] Coming to a firm conclusion to his exploration of morality he states: “But at least they [those who are willing to give up divine command morality and fear of atheism] would base their positions on the real foundation of morality, which is avoiding harm and preventing harm.” (My italics) I would agree that this is a better standard than a god based morality.
Sinnot-Armstrong’s whole concept of moral harm seems like a negative form of classic utilitarianism—the greatest happiness principle. And, while his concept of moral harm as an objective form of morality is on sound footing, it does not negate that it is moral feelings that lead one to see that harming or not preventing harm to others is not the way of moral action.
I think Sinnot-Armstrong firmly and effectively argues against the divine command theory of morality, despite not focusing on this in my comments. I really like the way he approaches the subject. He is respectful of others and refrains from obnoxious attacks like some atheists and theists are prone to do. And, while his conclusions are firm he does not present his exploration as leading to an absolute claim of correctness of his moral theory. I also felt he wrote very well and avoided technical jargon, so that it would be attractive to non-specialists.
I rated this book highly and would recommend it to anyone who is serious about how we can come to moral conclusions that would be acceptable to most people willing to reflect honestly. If you are a Christian he does not attack your beliefs per se, but divine command morality that is often associated with Christianity. Plus he spells out, at least as a beginning, an acceptable moral theory without god.
After he sets the stage, he presents that there is no factual evidence that atheists or secular societies are any less moral than Christians or Christian societies. From there he goes on to give a version of objective morality based on the concept of harm as stated above. After making his case for a workable morality without god, he confronts god based morality, and shows the problems with it and how it is not a workable solution. He ends up discussing what more needs to be investigated in coming to a better secular morality.
Here are some comments I made at particular points in reading the book. Numbers in brackets [] are pagination in the Kindle edition.
[21] After Sinnot-Armstrong mentions the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden, I thought there is a form of human evolution here. Human beings evolved the capability to obtain moral knowledge. When humans evolved from some form of ape to humans moral knowledge became possible in the reality of real life, not the made up biblical kind.
[52] “Theists use this popular slogan [‘If God is dead, everything is permitted’] to assert that nothing can be objectively morally wrong if God does not exist. The question, in short, is whether atheism entails nihilism, which is the denial of all real moral values, duties, and obligations.” Even supposing moral subjectivity, atheism does not necessarily entail nihilism.
[56-7] “Everyone I know—whether theist or atheist or agnostic—agrees that rape is morally wrong.” The theist is questionable on this if he or she really accepts the Bible as the word of god. The Old Testament does not condemn rape, at least not in all cases, and the New Testament is silent on it. So, the Christian can believe that rape is not morally wrong, at least in some cases. And, marital rape occurs in some Christian marriages. The fact that most theists believe rape is morally wrong is because they feel it is, not that they are command not to.
[59-60] “Almost everyone agrees that death, pain, and disability are bad.” But, the reason for this does not have to be an objective standard. People when they think that these things are bad, usually have feelings associated with this thinking. Matter of fact this kind of thinking without feeling may not lead to moral behavior, and it maybe that the feelings actually lead to the thought. A reason for people to believe these things are bad is that they, in most cases, would not want them occurring to themselves or are in psychological pain when they observe these situations. So, it is possible that morality does not depend, or at least initially, on an objective standard. I think that it is moral feelings that lead to objectivity in morality.
[62] “Certainly each item [in a list of harms] needs to be specified more precisely.” This and other statements he makes leads me to an admire his sense of grayness.
[85] “Call that harm-based core of morality ‘shared morality,’ because it is shared with theists, who agree that rape, murder, theft, child abuse and neglect, and so on are morally wrong.” However, some Christian parents abuse their children when administering punishment because they believe the Bible sanctions severe punishment. So, if moral feelings are the basis of morality, how is it that some people do not see some acts that most people consider to be harmful to be immoral? It is because feelings can be overridden by thoughts, especially thoughts that are repeatedly reinforced by others and supposedly sacred texts.
[131] Speaking of group discussion as an aid to making moral decisions, he writes: “An example should help to bring these abstractions down to earth. This case illustrates a real problem that hospital ethic committees have faced many times and that has been controversial in the past.” Never mind the specifics of his example, the point I wish to make is that few of us have the benefit of a committee discussion when faced with a moral decision, and certainly not when the decision is urgent. So, while hospital ethics committees are useful in their domain, as a general approach to finding out the differing amount of harm among moral choices is not much use.
[150] Coming to a firm conclusion to his exploration of morality he states: “But at least they [those who are willing to give up divine command morality and fear of atheism] would base their positions on the real foundation of morality, which is avoiding harm and preventing harm.” (My italics) I would agree that this is a better standard than a god based morality.
Sinnot-Armstrong’s whole concept of moral harm seems like a negative form of classic utilitarianism—the greatest happiness principle. And, while his concept of moral harm as an objective form of morality is on sound footing, it does not negate that it is moral feelings that lead one to see that harming or not preventing harm to others is not the way of moral action.
I think Sinnot-Armstrong firmly and effectively argues against the divine command theory of morality, despite not focusing on this in my comments. I really like the way he approaches the subject. He is respectful of others and refrains from obnoxious attacks like some atheists and theists are prone to do. And, while his conclusions are firm he does not present his exploration as leading to an absolute claim of correctness of his moral theory. I also felt he wrote very well and avoided technical jargon, so that it would be attractive to non-specialists.
I rated this book highly and would recommend it to anyone who is serious about how we can come to moral conclusions that would be acceptable to most people willing to reflect honestly. If you are a Christian he does not attack your beliefs per se, but divine command morality that is often associated with Christianity. Plus he spells out, at least as a beginning, an acceptable moral theory without god.
January 17, 2018
Kitap teist ahlakı eleştiriyor ve ateist ahlak anlayışını formülize ediyor. Tabi ki bunu kendi bakış açısıyla yapıyor. Çünkü yazara göre teistlerin aksine ateistler neyin doğru neyin yanlış olduğunu söyleyen bir üst otoriteye tabi değiller. Temelde teist ahlakın "kutsal emir teorisi" temeline dayandığını buna karşılık ateist ahlakın ise "zarar teorisi" temeline dayandığını söylüyor. Ayrıca ahlakın herkesin içinde bulunduğu böylece evrensel bir ahlak anlayışının var olduğunu söylüyor. Bunun da temeli başkasına acı vermemekten geçiyor. Okunması gereken bir kitap.
April 6, 2017
Seküler ahlak teorisini çeşitli argümanlarla açıklamaya çalışan uzun bir makaleden oluşuyor kitap. Temellendirmeleri daha sağlam olabilirdi.
October 11, 2020
I really had high hopes for this book. I wanted to understand a view that took God out of morality. It started out very promising with a respectful view of both theists and atheists. Yet, it just turned into shots at Christianity and several contradictions of his own arguments. And once he used Wikipedia as a reference, not only once but twice, it just went down hill from there.
I had hoped the author would expand more on his idea of harm based morality which I did find interesting. There was not enough research done either in his thesis or into his rebuttals against theism. If we are to understand morality without God, why quote or attack religion? That was what the majority of the book is about. I wanted to hear more developed understanding of arguments without God, not against Him.
Some of his arguments and examples felt quite dated so it was hard to relate to them.
He states the atheists agree that does God does not exist but disagree on many other points. But he doesn’t seem to use that same concept for theists. Theists agree that God exists but disagree on many points yet he lumps majority of theists into his own views which even I, as a theists (and many others I know), disagree on some of the statements he made about theism.
He also misquotes Nietzsche’s “God is dead” and really doesn’t have an understanding of Nietzsche’s view on that either.
I did really want to understand the atheists view on morality but sadly did not find much in this book to help my view.
I had hoped the author would expand more on his idea of harm based morality which I did find interesting. There was not enough research done either in his thesis or into his rebuttals against theism. If we are to understand morality without God, why quote or attack religion? That was what the majority of the book is about. I wanted to hear more developed understanding of arguments without God, not against Him.
Some of his arguments and examples felt quite dated so it was hard to relate to them.
He states the atheists agree that does God does not exist but disagree on many other points. But he doesn’t seem to use that same concept for theists. Theists agree that God exists but disagree on many points yet he lumps majority of theists into his own views which even I, as a theists (and many others I know), disagree on some of the statements he made about theism.
He also misquotes Nietzsche’s “God is dead” and really doesn’t have an understanding of Nietzsche’s view on that either.
I did really want to understand the atheists view on morality but sadly did not find much in this book to help my view.
September 10, 2009
I wanted to read this book after seeing a review that indicated that Sinnott-Armstrong attempts to establish an objective basis for morality in this book, but I was rather disappointed in his efforts in this direction.
Now, I should say that Sinnott-Armstrong's main goals in the book are to show that it is possible for atheists, agnostics, and secularists to justify their moral beliefs apart from appeals to God and religious texts and to show the problems with religiously-based ethical systems (particularly the divine-command approach to ethics). In these two areas, Sinnott-Armstrong succeeds quite well; however, for those interested in ethics, he really does not present anything new or different, but he never claims to be attempting anything particularly novel. Basically, Sinnott-Armstrong is just trying to present these arguments in terms that those without any background in philosophy or ethics can appreciate, and, again, I think he does this very well.
Sinnott-Armstrong's attempt to ground his ethical views in objective moral standards begins with the harm principle: rational agents should not take any actions that cause unnecessary harm to others, and they should takes steps to prevent any unnecessary harms to others when they are able to do so. Now, this principle is one that the vast majority of rational, normal humans would accept; however, there is nothing whatsoever objective about it. It is an opinion, and nothing more than that.
Sinnott-Armstrong never tells us why or how his harm principle is objective, and I frankly have no idea what it would mean for any normative principle to be objective. (Yes, I am a nihilist.) In the realm of the objective we find empirical physical laws (e.g. Einstein's famous E = mc squared or Newton's laws of motion) and analytic truths (e.g. linguistic truths like all quadrapeds have, by definition, four limbs or mathematical truths like two parallel lines never meet). Moral principles, however, are not empirically true: while it may be necessary that if we all want to live a life of relative peace and security that we should not cause harm to others, there might be some who would reject that idea that we should all want to live lives of relative peace and security. (Granted, they might be sociopaths or extreme egoists, but such people do exist.) Nor is it an analytic truth that it is good not to harm others, for what is good for some may not be good for others: a sociopath, for example, may find that it is good for him to be able to harm others but not for others to harm him, and the same might be said for a megalomaniacal dictator like Caligula or Stalin. We could argue with such sociopaths that their actions are not good for the whole of society, but they may very well not care about such principles, and there is no objective standard to which we can appeal. And it will not do to state that part of the definition of good is not harming others unnecessarily, for this is simply begging the question of what is good (and thus moral) in the first place. Morality, then, is a matter of taste and opinion. Moral principles are not principles that are true or false; they are principles that we establish if we want to achieve certain ends, such as living what most people would consider to be "the good life." But there are those who would not desire to attain such an end and so would not accept our principles in the first place. Thus, morality is not something that can be objectively grounded in any way.
Although Sinnott-Armstrong claims that he has given an objective basis for morality in the book, what he has really done is to provide rational arguments showing that the non-religious can rationally and consistently live a moral life despite lacking any belief in God: God is not necessary for morality. (Of course, Plato fairly well established this about 2,500 years ago in Euthyphro.) What Sinnott-Armstrong fails to do (and what, it seems to me, no moral philosopher could ever do) is provide an objective basis for morality.
Now, I should say that Sinnott-Armstrong's main goals in the book are to show that it is possible for atheists, agnostics, and secularists to justify their moral beliefs apart from appeals to God and religious texts and to show the problems with religiously-based ethical systems (particularly the divine-command approach to ethics). In these two areas, Sinnott-Armstrong succeeds quite well; however, for those interested in ethics, he really does not present anything new or different, but he never claims to be attempting anything particularly novel. Basically, Sinnott-Armstrong is just trying to present these arguments in terms that those without any background in philosophy or ethics can appreciate, and, again, I think he does this very well.
Sinnott-Armstrong's attempt to ground his ethical views in objective moral standards begins with the harm principle: rational agents should not take any actions that cause unnecessary harm to others, and they should takes steps to prevent any unnecessary harms to others when they are able to do so. Now, this principle is one that the vast majority of rational, normal humans would accept; however, there is nothing whatsoever objective about it. It is an opinion, and nothing more than that.
Sinnott-Armstrong never tells us why or how his harm principle is objective, and I frankly have no idea what it would mean for any normative principle to be objective. (Yes, I am a nihilist.) In the realm of the objective we find empirical physical laws (e.g. Einstein's famous E = mc squared or Newton's laws of motion) and analytic truths (e.g. linguistic truths like all quadrapeds have, by definition, four limbs or mathematical truths like two parallel lines never meet). Moral principles, however, are not empirically true: while it may be necessary that if we all want to live a life of relative peace and security that we should not cause harm to others, there might be some who would reject that idea that we should all want to live lives of relative peace and security. (Granted, they might be sociopaths or extreme egoists, but such people do exist.) Nor is it an analytic truth that it is good not to harm others, for what is good for some may not be good for others: a sociopath, for example, may find that it is good for him to be able to harm others but not for others to harm him, and the same might be said for a megalomaniacal dictator like Caligula or Stalin. We could argue with such sociopaths that their actions are not good for the whole of society, but they may very well not care about such principles, and there is no objective standard to which we can appeal. And it will not do to state that part of the definition of good is not harming others unnecessarily, for this is simply begging the question of what is good (and thus moral) in the first place. Morality, then, is a matter of taste and opinion. Moral principles are not principles that are true or false; they are principles that we establish if we want to achieve certain ends, such as living what most people would consider to be "the good life." But there are those who would not desire to attain such an end and so would not accept our principles in the first place. Thus, morality is not something that can be objectively grounded in any way.
Although Sinnott-Armstrong claims that he has given an objective basis for morality in the book, what he has really done is to provide rational arguments showing that the non-religious can rationally and consistently live a moral life despite lacking any belief in God: God is not necessary for morality. (Of course, Plato fairly well established this about 2,500 years ago in Euthyphro.) What Sinnott-Armstrong fails to do (and what, it seems to me, no moral philosopher could ever do) is provide an objective basis for morality.
November 2, 2014
It was a short book but a slow read. I don't know if it's because he was preaching to the choir or if I thought his writing style was slow.
"…the Bible cannot provide a solid foundation for morality or for knowledge of morality."
This is what I'm wrestling with right now.
I have argued for a long time that the Bible is not a book to give us a list of moral rules. In fact, though I believe in God, I would agree with the author's harm-based morality.
Reading this book makes you realize how arbitrary people truly are with their morality. Especially religious people. How many religious people state their morality is based on God's commands, yet do all kinds of inference to preach against things that God never explicitly commanded against (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). And since no two groups of fundamentalists can agree on the specific rules, it ends up being completely arbitrary. If Christians can't agree on morality then which one has the right to impose to impose his (or hers)?
"…the Bible cannot provide a solid foundation for morality or for knowledge of morality."
This is what I'm wrestling with right now.
I have argued for a long time that the Bible is not a book to give us a list of moral rules. In fact, though I believe in God, I would agree with the author's harm-based morality.
Reading this book makes you realize how arbitrary people truly are with their morality. Especially religious people. How many religious people state their morality is based on God's commands, yet do all kinds of inference to preach against things that God never explicitly commanded against (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). And since no two groups of fundamentalists can agree on the specific rules, it ends up being completely arbitrary. If Christians can't agree on morality then which one has the right to impose to impose his (or hers)?
April 1, 2010
This was a good book, and his argument was solid. I just wish I cared more about the argument and less about my mortgage these days. A few years ago, I would've eaten this bad boy up.
August 21, 2021
The main point of the book is to make a case that morality isn’t dependent on the notion of God. Sinnott-Armstrong argues that not all atheists are morally bad; that secular societies are not bound to become corrupt and depraved (but this is tricky issue as we need to define immoral); that objective morality makes sense and has a firm foundation without God; that atheists have adequate reason to be moral; and finally that atheists can know what is right and wrong without guidance from God or religious scriptures or institutions.
- If God exists, then believers owe Him gratitude, but it is not immoral for atheists to refuse to worship, thank, or even recognise God. In order to show that atheists are immoral, theists need to show that atheists perform acts that are immoral on nonreligious grounds. The claim, by theists, is that only love of God and fear of Hell would lead people to do the right thing, so if anyone doesn’t believe in Christ he is going to be immoral. But it is cheating to use belief in christ as a premise to then make the conclusion that atheists are immoral; even non-Christians would be immoral on this view. This is not to deny that atheists who are bad people exist; they obviously do. But they are bad not because they are atheists; they are bad because they are human. There have been many good atheist and agnostic people; so there is no basis for claiming that belief in God is necessary for living a good life or for being a good person. But what about those atheists would were really bad, like Stalin or Mao? Again, they weren’t bad because they were atheists; that would commit the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this.) When atheists are responsible for mass murder that doesn’t show that atheism is itself responsible for mass murder.
- Ultimately, both theists and atheists are human, so in each group some will be good, and others will be bad. Which worldview is better overall cannot be solved by picking good individuals on your side and bad individuals on the opposing side, because two can play that game. The question then becomes: does widespread atheism lead to immorality? It is important that we don’t cite religious forms of immorality as that is question-begging; we need some independent criteria with which to judge people. It is cheating to cite religious restrictions to show that secular societies are corrupt.
HOMICIDE; One study found that secular societies tended to have lower rates of homicide, juvenile mortality rates (including suicide), sexually transmitted disease, and adolescent pregnancy and abortion; (“Gregory Paul, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Social Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in Prosperous Democracies,” Journal of Religion and Society 7 (2005), 1–17.) This shows that belief in God at least does not lower homicide rates.
LESSER CRIMES; When it comes to lesser crimes, studies show that religious communities are somewhat less likely to engage in crime (“C. J. Baier and B. R. E. Wright, “‘If you love me, keep my commandments’: A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38 (2001), 3–21.) and another study, which surveyed seventy-five metropolitan areas in the US found religion to be associated with less larceny, buglary, and assault but no less murder or rape. (W. S. Bainbridge, “The Religious Ecology of Deviance,” American Sociological Review 54 (1989), 288–95.) But we don’t know whether crime reduces religion or religion reduces crime.
DISCRIMINATION; many studies suggest an association between religion and discrimination, but the degree varies. Some groups of church-goers have been found to be less prejudices than others, but none has been found to be less prejudiced that non-religious people. (Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, 459. See also 458–78, which summarize numerous studies; and C. D. Batson, P. A. Schoenrade, and L. W. Ventis, Religion and the Individual: A Socio-Psychological Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.)
ABUSE; some crimes seem to be increased by religion; such as sexual abuse by clergy; but since we are all humans, it is not surprising that many religious people are bad. The question is whether religion exacerbates abuse. This is not limited to Catholic priests; about 75% of methodist clergywomen and also female rabbis indicate sexual abuse by male clergy (J. T. Chibnall, J. Wolf, and P. N. Duckro, “A National Survey of the Sexual Trauma Experiences of Catholic Nuns,” Review of Religious Research, 40 (1998), 142–67). When it comes to domestic abuse; surveys have found correlations between more frequent church attendance and less domestic abuse (For a summary of such surveys, see Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, 439–43).
CHARITY; morally good people need to perform positive acts of helping the needy too; it was found that religious people were 25 percent more likely to give to the needy that secularists (91 versus 66 percent) and 23 percent more likely to volunteer (67 versus 44 percent). (“Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 34.) It would seem that many religious people donate in order to get out of Hell or to get into heaven; now it’s true that charity is an act in which the motive doesn’t matter (people in need who are helped don’t care if their benefactor had purity of heart) but forced gifts brings no moral credit. But since the above citation relies on self-reports; it’s not evident how accurate it is, since religious people are likely to inflate their charitable giving in surveys. When we turn to surveys that measure actual behavioural measures of helping, there is little evidence that religious people are more helpful than less religious or nonreligious people. (“Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, p. 447)
- Objective morality makes sense and has a firm base without God; we need to understand religion as obeying God’s command; and religion as constituting prevention of harm. Why is rape harmful? On the secular view, the answer is because it harms the victim for no adequate reason as there is no justification for the harm. What are harms? They include death, pain, disability; they aren’t uniquely ‘bad’ as they sometimes bring some good with them. Pain can build character; death can end pain, but harms are bad when they bring no benefit. Despite the fact that there are many diasgreements about what exactly constitutes causing harm, we can broadly agree on a lot, such as death, pain, and disability are all bad. Why are they bad? Because anyone who seeks them without an adequate reason is irrational. What is irrationality? One sign that an act is irrational is thta you would never advise anyone you care about to do that act. Causing harm to oneself without an adequate reason is irrational, not immoral. Morality enters the story when harm is caused to other people. Causing pain, disability, or death to others for no adequate reason is immoral. Why? The basic answer is that we have no reason to claim any special moral status for ourselves. This Golden Rule (do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is thought to come from Religion; but the fact that it is stated in so many diverse religious traditions shows the insights behind the Golden Rule does not depend on any particular religion. The Golden Rule is part of common sense. However, theists often say that secular moralities cannot explain what is so special about humans since other animals suffer. Theists can just say that humans were chosen by God, but secularists can say that humans are moral agents because
they are free and have free will; not Libertarian uncaused free will; but the freedom (or capacity) to reflect on and respond to reasons. So the reason humans have moral duties is because of our ability to reflect on and respond to reasons. But while harm should be prevented as far as possible, it cannot always be prevented. Judges and police cause harm when they jail criminals, but they cause harm in order to prevent further harm in the future, which is why these acts are not immoral, since they are justified harms. The question then becomes; when is it justified to cause harm to others? There is some empirical evidence of near-universal agreement when it comes to deciding which harms are justified. (“Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (New York: Ecco, 2006)). More than 90% of respondents agreed that it is permissible to kill five people in order to save ten. This response is not affected much by religion, culture, gender, or any of the other demographic factors that can usually be thought of as influencing morality. One major source of disagreement is scope; the general principle states that its immoral to cause harm for no adequate reason, but not to whom it is wrong to cause harm to. It is enough that many cases are clear. People almost always admit that others who are like them in whatver ways they see as relevant are in the protected class. The crucial point is that this view of morality has no need of God. Some harms are worse than others, and that can sometimes be used to determine which reasons are adequate to justify causing which harms, even if God does not exist or never tells us which harms are worse. And we can cite human abilities to explain why we have moral duties other animals lack, even if we are not special in any of god’s eyes. This account also makes morality objective. If what makes an aggressive war morally wrong is that it hurts innocent people, then whether it is wrong does not depend on my desires, such as whether I want to harm those people. It also does not deend on my beliefs, such as whether I believe that the war will hurt those people. Religion-based prohibitions cannot be used against my secular harm-based theory because I am not trying to give an account of everything that anyone thinks is immoral. If there are certain acts that are immoral and do not cause harm, then the harm-based account of morality is not complete. If it’s not complete, it still reveals what makes almost all common immoral acts immoral and the harm-based theory of morality shows that much of morality has nothing to do with God. The harm-based core of morality we can call shared morality, because it is shared with theists who agree that rape, murder, theft, child abuse, and neglect are morally wrong; there might be some immoral acts which are not harm-based, call this extra morality; and there is yet another class of moral beliefs that cannot be jusitifed without religious backing; call this religious morality. My only goal has been to show how atheists and agnostics can provide an initial rough outline of the beginning of an objective account of the shared part of morality without invoking God.
- Atheists have adequate reason to be moral; it is normally in atheists’ interest to be moral, since immorality rarely pays, some people get away with horrible misdemeanour, but the odds are stacked against them. But this is not always the case; sometimes harming others is in our best interests; but athesits can recognise and act on nonegoistic reasons as much as anybody else can. What is a reason? It is a fact with rational force which can turn an otherwise irrational act into a rational act. Removing my appendix for no reason is irrational; but the fact that it is about to burst and kill me is a fact that turns the removal of my appendix from an irrational act into a rational one. Why be moral then? The fact that an act causes harm to others is a reason not to do that act, and the fact that an act prevents harm to others is a reason to do that act. (We don’t act based on reasons though; we find reasons for acts that we already do. As Hume and Haidt tirelessly say, reason is a slave of the passions. We don’t harm others, but not because of the reason that an act can cause harm; we don’t harm others because we feel repulsed by the thought of committing harm to members of our in-group.) The secular harm based reason to be moral can motivate people to be moral as long as they care about other people. Almost all atheists and agnostics do care about others, just as theists do. If our only reason to be moral is to avoid Hell, then our motivation is far from ideal. Some people really want a reason to be moral that will motivate psychopaths and others want a reason to be moral that does not leave morality arbitrary. I share the latter goal, but I can appreciate the former wish; unfortunately, I doubt that the former wish can be fulfilled. No reason will succeed in convincing everyone to be moral. The conflict is between those people who are satisfied to do what they can in the temporary world that they inhabit and other people who feel that morality and life are empty and meaningless unless they have some kind of eternal significance. Finiphiles love their finite world but still grant that infinite gains are meaningful. Infiniphiles love the infinite so much that they deny that finite goods, harms, and lives have any meaning at all in the face of eternity
- If God exists, then believers owe Him gratitude, but it is not immoral for atheists to refuse to worship, thank, or even recognise God. In order to show that atheists are immoral, theists need to show that atheists perform acts that are immoral on nonreligious grounds. The claim, by theists, is that only love of God and fear of Hell would lead people to do the right thing, so if anyone doesn’t believe in Christ he is going to be immoral. But it is cheating to use belief in christ as a premise to then make the conclusion that atheists are immoral; even non-Christians would be immoral on this view. This is not to deny that atheists who are bad people exist; they obviously do. But they are bad not because they are atheists; they are bad because they are human. There have been many good atheist and agnostic people; so there is no basis for claiming that belief in God is necessary for living a good life or for being a good person. But what about those atheists would were really bad, like Stalin or Mao? Again, they weren’t bad because they were atheists; that would commit the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this.) When atheists are responsible for mass murder that doesn’t show that atheism is itself responsible for mass murder.
- Ultimately, both theists and atheists are human, so in each group some will be good, and others will be bad. Which worldview is better overall cannot be solved by picking good individuals on your side and bad individuals on the opposing side, because two can play that game. The question then becomes: does widespread atheism lead to immorality? It is important that we don’t cite religious forms of immorality as that is question-begging; we need some independent criteria with which to judge people. It is cheating to cite religious restrictions to show that secular societies are corrupt.
HOMICIDE; One study found that secular societies tended to have lower rates of homicide, juvenile mortality rates (including suicide), sexually transmitted disease, and adolescent pregnancy and abortion; (“Gregory Paul, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Social Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in Prosperous Democracies,” Journal of Religion and Society 7 (2005), 1–17.) This shows that belief in God at least does not lower homicide rates.
LESSER CRIMES; When it comes to lesser crimes, studies show that religious communities are somewhat less likely to engage in crime (“C. J. Baier and B. R. E. Wright, “‘If you love me, keep my commandments’: A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Religion on Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38 (2001), 3–21.) and another study, which surveyed seventy-five metropolitan areas in the US found religion to be associated with less larceny, buglary, and assault but no less murder or rape. (W. S. Bainbridge, “The Religious Ecology of Deviance,” American Sociological Review 54 (1989), 288–95.) But we don’t know whether crime reduces religion or religion reduces crime.
DISCRIMINATION; many studies suggest an association between religion and discrimination, but the degree varies. Some groups of church-goers have been found to be less prejudices than others, but none has been found to be less prejudiced that non-religious people. (Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, 459. See also 458–78, which summarize numerous studies; and C. D. Batson, P. A. Schoenrade, and L. W. Ventis, Religion and the Individual: A Socio-Psychological Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.)
ABUSE; some crimes seem to be increased by religion; such as sexual abuse by clergy; but since we are all humans, it is not surprising that many religious people are bad. The question is whether religion exacerbates abuse. This is not limited to Catholic priests; about 75% of methodist clergywomen and also female rabbis indicate sexual abuse by male clergy (J. T. Chibnall, J. Wolf, and P. N. Duckro, “A National Survey of the Sexual Trauma Experiences of Catholic Nuns,” Review of Religious Research, 40 (1998), 142–67). When it comes to domestic abuse; surveys have found correlations between more frequent church attendance and less domestic abuse (For a summary of such surveys, see Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, 439–43).
CHARITY; morally good people need to perform positive acts of helping the needy too; it was found that religious people were 25 percent more likely to give to the needy that secularists (91 versus 66 percent) and 23 percent more likely to volunteer (67 versus 44 percent). (“Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 34.) It would seem that many religious people donate in order to get out of Hell or to get into heaven; now it’s true that charity is an act in which the motive doesn’t matter (people in need who are helped don’t care if their benefactor had purity of heart) but forced gifts brings no moral credit. But since the above citation relies on self-reports; it’s not evident how accurate it is, since religious people are likely to inflate their charitable giving in surveys. When we turn to surveys that measure actual behavioural measures of helping, there is little evidence that religious people are more helpful than less religious or nonreligious people. (“Spilka et al., The Psychology of Religion, p. 447)
- Objective morality makes sense and has a firm base without God; we need to understand religion as obeying God’s command; and religion as constituting prevention of harm. Why is rape harmful? On the secular view, the answer is because it harms the victim for no adequate reason as there is no justification for the harm. What are harms? They include death, pain, disability; they aren’t uniquely ‘bad’ as they sometimes bring some good with them. Pain can build character; death can end pain, but harms are bad when they bring no benefit. Despite the fact that there are many diasgreements about what exactly constitutes causing harm, we can broadly agree on a lot, such as death, pain, and disability are all bad. Why are they bad? Because anyone who seeks them without an adequate reason is irrational. What is irrationality? One sign that an act is irrational is thta you would never advise anyone you care about to do that act. Causing harm to oneself without an adequate reason is irrational, not immoral. Morality enters the story when harm is caused to other people. Causing pain, disability, or death to others for no adequate reason is immoral. Why? The basic answer is that we have no reason to claim any special moral status for ourselves. This Golden Rule (do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is thought to come from Religion; but the fact that it is stated in so many diverse religious traditions shows the insights behind the Golden Rule does not depend on any particular religion. The Golden Rule is part of common sense. However, theists often say that secular moralities cannot explain what is so special about humans since other animals suffer. Theists can just say that humans were chosen by God, but secularists can say that humans are moral agents because
they are free and have free will; not Libertarian uncaused free will; but the freedom (or capacity) to reflect on and respond to reasons. So the reason humans have moral duties is because of our ability to reflect on and respond to reasons. But while harm should be prevented as far as possible, it cannot always be prevented. Judges and police cause harm when they jail criminals, but they cause harm in order to prevent further harm in the future, which is why these acts are not immoral, since they are justified harms. The question then becomes; when is it justified to cause harm to others? There is some empirical evidence of near-universal agreement when it comes to deciding which harms are justified. (“Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (New York: Ecco, 2006)). More than 90% of respondents agreed that it is permissible to kill five people in order to save ten. This response is not affected much by religion, culture, gender, or any of the other demographic factors that can usually be thought of as influencing morality. One major source of disagreement is scope; the general principle states that its immoral to cause harm for no adequate reason, but not to whom it is wrong to cause harm to. It is enough that many cases are clear. People almost always admit that others who are like them in whatver ways they see as relevant are in the protected class. The crucial point is that this view of morality has no need of God. Some harms are worse than others, and that can sometimes be used to determine which reasons are adequate to justify causing which harms, even if God does not exist or never tells us which harms are worse. And we can cite human abilities to explain why we have moral duties other animals lack, even if we are not special in any of god’s eyes. This account also makes morality objective. If what makes an aggressive war morally wrong is that it hurts innocent people, then whether it is wrong does not depend on my desires, such as whether I want to harm those people. It also does not deend on my beliefs, such as whether I believe that the war will hurt those people. Religion-based prohibitions cannot be used against my secular harm-based theory because I am not trying to give an account of everything that anyone thinks is immoral. If there are certain acts that are immoral and do not cause harm, then the harm-based account of morality is not complete. If it’s not complete, it still reveals what makes almost all common immoral acts immoral and the harm-based theory of morality shows that much of morality has nothing to do with God. The harm-based core of morality we can call shared morality, because it is shared with theists who agree that rape, murder, theft, child abuse, and neglect are morally wrong; there might be some immoral acts which are not harm-based, call this extra morality; and there is yet another class of moral beliefs that cannot be jusitifed without religious backing; call this religious morality. My only goal has been to show how atheists and agnostics can provide an initial rough outline of the beginning of an objective account of the shared part of morality without invoking God.
- Atheists have adequate reason to be moral; it is normally in atheists’ interest to be moral, since immorality rarely pays, some people get away with horrible misdemeanour, but the odds are stacked against them. But this is not always the case; sometimes harming others is in our best interests; but athesits can recognise and act on nonegoistic reasons as much as anybody else can. What is a reason? It is a fact with rational force which can turn an otherwise irrational act into a rational act. Removing my appendix for no reason is irrational; but the fact that it is about to burst and kill me is a fact that turns the removal of my appendix from an irrational act into a rational one. Why be moral then? The fact that an act causes harm to others is a reason not to do that act, and the fact that an act prevents harm to others is a reason to do that act. (We don’t act based on reasons though; we find reasons for acts that we already do. As Hume and Haidt tirelessly say, reason is a slave of the passions. We don’t harm others, but not because of the reason that an act can cause harm; we don’t harm others because we feel repulsed by the thought of committing harm to members of our in-group.) The secular harm based reason to be moral can motivate people to be moral as long as they care about other people. Almost all atheists and agnostics do care about others, just as theists do. If our only reason to be moral is to avoid Hell, then our motivation is far from ideal. Some people really want a reason to be moral that will motivate psychopaths and others want a reason to be moral that does not leave morality arbitrary. I share the latter goal, but I can appreciate the former wish; unfortunately, I doubt that the former wish can be fulfilled. No reason will succeed in convincing everyone to be moral. The conflict is between those people who are satisfied to do what they can in the temporary world that they inhabit and other people who feel that morality and life are empty and meaningless unless they have some kind of eternal significance. Finiphiles love their finite world but still grant that infinite gains are meaningful. Infiniphiles love the infinite so much that they deny that finite goods, harms, and lives have any meaning at all in the face of eternity
August 30, 2019
Argues that atheists and agnostics are just as moral as theists
It has been assumed in most societies since the dawn of history that humans cannot be moral without God and religion. Sinnott-Armstrong who is a Professor of Philosophy and Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, presents in this extended essay the modern view to the contrary.
More specifically he argues that a belief in God is not necessary for people to be good or for humans to realize that some acts are morally wrong. We do not need the fear of eternal damnation to behave in morally acceptable ways. This is then a treatise in moral philosophy in which Sinnott-Armstrong takes the side of atheists and agnostics against theists who think that being atheist or agnostic means per force that you are immoral.
He begins with the provocative question in Chapter One "Would You Marry an Atheist?" The answer is most people wouldn't. Furthermore, the prejudice against atheists and other non-believers is so great that an avowed atheist has no chance of being elected to high office in the United States. He notes that people in general fear atheists and discriminate against them simply because they are atheists, and that fear stems from the mistaken idea that atheists can't be moral. In the chapters that follow Sinnott-Armstrong argues with some force that religious people and theists in general may be more morally compromised than atheists. He cites studies that suggest as much.
Personally my experience with fundamentalist Christians and others who take the Bible literally is that their mental states are so compromised by the conflicting morality of the Bible that they practice a similar duplicity in their daily lives. If you've ever argued with a creationist you know what I mean. But Christians are not alone in their prejudices against non-believers. One finds the same antagonism in other religions, especially in Islam and indeed in the conservative expressions of most religions.
What Sinnot-Armstrong does not present here is the argument from psychology in which we see that people have neurological structures called "mirror neurons" that ape not just the behaviors of others but their mental states as well. Thus empathy and an identification with the plight of others is automatic and built into our nature in such a way that we are naturally moral animals who instinctively follow (most of us any way, for the most part) the edict of the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have done unto you. We cannot help but feel that way unless of course we demonize others or make them our enemies or otherwise fear them.
Others have argued that our social nature as formed over the ages has molded us into moral beings who are capable of behaving in ways that reflect our understanding of what is right and wrong and guide us to behave in accordance with what is right. This surprisingly is a modern revelation and contrary to the spirit of the Bible in which humans are seen as fallen creatures who need God and the fear of punishment in order to behave morally. Supporting this belief in the news we constantly hear about people committing horrendous acts of hatred and violence, and of course nation states including our own have brought death and destruction on untold numbers of innocent people.
But these exceptions merely test the rule. Humans for the most part act morally because such behavior not only benefits them but other people as well, and is one of the reasons for the evolutionary success of the human race. For humans cooperation is what tames the jungle and molds the environment to our benefit, not blood thirsty competition.
Sinnott-Armstrong's tone is reasonable and reasoned and his argument thorough to the point of something like near exhaustion. He bends over backwards to be fair to both theists and atheists while insisting that these former antagonists can live in peace and harmony. I would say he is entirely convincing but I am part of the choir here, and so it would be better to hear what those skeptical of his thesis might think.
For those of you who are moderate in your religious views but not sure that you can trust non-believers this book might be an eye-opener.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Religion: Reviews, Essays and Commentary”
It has been assumed in most societies since the dawn of history that humans cannot be moral without God and religion. Sinnott-Armstrong who is a Professor of Philosophy and Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, presents in this extended essay the modern view to the contrary.
More specifically he argues that a belief in God is not necessary for people to be good or for humans to realize that some acts are morally wrong. We do not need the fear of eternal damnation to behave in morally acceptable ways. This is then a treatise in moral philosophy in which Sinnott-Armstrong takes the side of atheists and agnostics against theists who think that being atheist or agnostic means per force that you are immoral.
He begins with the provocative question in Chapter One "Would You Marry an Atheist?" The answer is most people wouldn't. Furthermore, the prejudice against atheists and other non-believers is so great that an avowed atheist has no chance of being elected to high office in the United States. He notes that people in general fear atheists and discriminate against them simply because they are atheists, and that fear stems from the mistaken idea that atheists can't be moral. In the chapters that follow Sinnott-Armstrong argues with some force that religious people and theists in general may be more morally compromised than atheists. He cites studies that suggest as much.
Personally my experience with fundamentalist Christians and others who take the Bible literally is that their mental states are so compromised by the conflicting morality of the Bible that they practice a similar duplicity in their daily lives. If you've ever argued with a creationist you know what I mean. But Christians are not alone in their prejudices against non-believers. One finds the same antagonism in other religions, especially in Islam and indeed in the conservative expressions of most religions.
What Sinnot-Armstrong does not present here is the argument from psychology in which we see that people have neurological structures called "mirror neurons" that ape not just the behaviors of others but their mental states as well. Thus empathy and an identification with the plight of others is automatic and built into our nature in such a way that we are naturally moral animals who instinctively follow (most of us any way, for the most part) the edict of the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have done unto you. We cannot help but feel that way unless of course we demonize others or make them our enemies or otherwise fear them.
Others have argued that our social nature as formed over the ages has molded us into moral beings who are capable of behaving in ways that reflect our understanding of what is right and wrong and guide us to behave in accordance with what is right. This surprisingly is a modern revelation and contrary to the spirit of the Bible in which humans are seen as fallen creatures who need God and the fear of punishment in order to behave morally. Supporting this belief in the news we constantly hear about people committing horrendous acts of hatred and violence, and of course nation states including our own have brought death and destruction on untold numbers of innocent people.
But these exceptions merely test the rule. Humans for the most part act morally because such behavior not only benefits them but other people as well, and is one of the reasons for the evolutionary success of the human race. For humans cooperation is what tames the jungle and molds the environment to our benefit, not blood thirsty competition.
Sinnott-Armstrong's tone is reasonable and reasoned and his argument thorough to the point of something like near exhaustion. He bends over backwards to be fair to both theists and atheists while insisting that these former antagonists can live in peace and harmony. I would say he is entirely convincing but I am part of the choir here, and so it would be better to hear what those skeptical of his thesis might think.
For those of you who are moderate in your religious views but not sure that you can trust non-believers this book might be an eye-opener.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Religion: Reviews, Essays and Commentary”
June 3, 2024
AN ATHEIST PRESENTS A BASIS FOR A “HARM-BASED,” PURELY SECULAR MORALITY
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (born 1955) is an American philosopher who currently teaches at Duke University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “the goal of this book is to show that there really is no question about morality without God. There is just plain morality… Many atheists are theists because they believe, for whatever reason, that morality depends on religion… many people who profess to follow the Bible see religious faith and morality as inseparable… This misidentification is pernicious. Our government needs a separation between church and state but NOT a separation between morality and state… That’s why I wrote this book: to try to help readers understand why morality has nothing to do with religion… I want to show both sides in this debate that they are mistaken … [in] their shared but erroneous assumption that ‘If God is dead, everything is permitted.’ This book is an extended refutation of that popular slogan.” (Pg. xi-xii)
He continues, “I will settle on evangelical Christianity as my target… As the foil to evangelical Christianity, I will focus on atheism. Why? Because I am an atheist. I do not adopt atheism lightly or arbitrarily. I gave strong reasons for atheism in my parts of a previous debate book with an evangelical Christian. That previous work rebuts the charge that atheism is intellectually irresponsible, but the arguments for and against the existence of God do not answer the current question of how morality relates to religion or God.” (Pg. xvi) He adds, "My main goal is not to convert everyone to atheism. It is only to show that atheists need not be arbitrary, unreasonable, ignorant, inconsistent, irresponsible, disreputable, uncaring, or, especially, immoral.” (Pg. xviii)
He states, “there are many more theists who have no qualms about insulting atheists, and there are even more theists who stand on the sidelines and listen to such insults without objecting… These theists are partly responsible for the culture wars that they fight… many theists do stand in the way of communication and resolution of this social problem. Many atheists have contributed to the predicament as well. Christopher Hitchens named his book, ‘God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.’ This provocative subtitle … is not true, and it will not contribute to constructive conversation or mutual comprehension. Richard Dawkins… suggests that theists are mentally ill… Sam Harris … [acts] as if religious faith has ended and secular reason is the only future… [Daniel] Dennett suggests that religious people are under a spell… Earlier, Dennett among others labeled atheists ‘brights’ and religious people ‘dims.’ Again, who holds serious discussions with dim people who are under spells or with people who announce that YOU are dim or under a spell?” (Pg. 10)
He observes, “Even if Hitler was not an atheist, he was probably not deeply religious, and Stalin and Mao were atheists and even antireligious. There is also no denying that Stalin and Mao were monsters… Nonetheless, Stalin and Mao were not immortal BECAUSE they were atheists… other aspect[s] of their personalities and ideologies could explain why they became mass murderers. If it does, then it was not their atheism that made them bad. It was their independent character flaws.” (Pg. 27)
He argues, “It is morally wrong for [someone] to hit you for no reason. If that is morally wrong, then it is also morally wrong for you to hit him for you to hit him for no reason… It might sound as if this little argument simply applies the Golden Rule. It does not. In fact, the Golden Rule is not so golden when you look at it carefully… I would have men (and women!) give me a million dollars. Does that mean that I should or must give them a million dollars? Of course not… A judge who sentences a criminal to jail would not want the criminal to sentence him (the judge) to jail. Does that mean that the judge should … not sentence the criminal?... What really makes certain acts immoral is not what I or anyone wants but, instead, that such acts cause harm to other people for no good enough reason.” (Pg. 63-65)
He says, “all the readers of this book, I hope, will agree that all rational humans---including women and slaves as well as citizens of foreign countries and believers in other religions---should be seen as falling in the protected class. It is just as wrong to harm them as any other person. The crucial point here is that this commonsensical view of morality has no need of God… This harm-based account of morality is totally secular. As a result, it can be accepted by atheists, agnostics… and even by evangelical Christians… That acceptability across the board is one of its advantages.” (Pg. 74-75) He adds, “even if we cannot say WHY it is immoral to cause unjustified harm to others, that should not make us doubt that it IS immoral for moral agents to cause unjustified harm to others.” (Pg. 77)
He points out, “Even if God did exist and did issue known commands, why would you and I be morally required to obey them? One common answer is that God will punish us if we disobey Him… but that reason would hardly be a moral duty… Another common answer is that we owe God gratitude for creating us. However, although children should also be grateful to their parents for creating them, children do not have a moral obligation to do everything their parents tell them to do. Yet another common answer is that God the father knows best, so, if God tells us that an act is morally wrong, it is. But how do we know that God is always correct? Unless we have some independent reason to believe that certain acts are morally wrong, we have no reason to believe that God is correct when He indicates to us … that those acts are morally wrong.” (Pg. 101)
He argues, “Many theists … [claim] that God could not command rape because his commands flow necessarily from his nature. That dogma does not solve the problem, however, both because commands that flow from a god’s nature can still be arbitrary… and because, even if the Christian God is all-good by his very nature, we cannot know that He would not command rape unless we assume that rape is immoral for some independent reason. But if there is such an independent reason against rape, then that reason is what makes rape morally wrong.” (Pg. 106)
He summarizes, “On my harm-based account, what makes an act immoral is that it causes harm or fails to prevent harm to others… The fact that an act causes harm to others is a reason not to do that act, and the fact that an act prevents harm to others is a reason to do that act. There is, then, always a reason to be moral on this secular account.” (Pg. 117)
He recalls, “I used to be an evangelical Christian. Now I am an atheist. [Hebrews 10:26-27] implies that even Christ’s death cannot get me out of Hell. But this gives me nothing to lose by acting immorally and nothing to gain by acting morally. Whether I lie, cheat, and steal---or whether I convert back to Christianity---cannot ever have any effect on my ultimate fate, according to this verse. Hence, Heaven and Hell supply me, among others, with no reason to be moral. It’s lucky that I believe in a secular reason to be moral!” (Pg. 125-126)
This book will be “must reading” for those looking for secular theories of ethics, or for critiques of religious theories of ethics.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (born 1955) is an American philosopher who currently teaches at Duke University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “the goal of this book is to show that there really is no question about morality without God. There is just plain morality… Many atheists are theists because they believe, for whatever reason, that morality depends on religion… many people who profess to follow the Bible see religious faith and morality as inseparable… This misidentification is pernicious. Our government needs a separation between church and state but NOT a separation between morality and state… That’s why I wrote this book: to try to help readers understand why morality has nothing to do with religion… I want to show both sides in this debate that they are mistaken … [in] their shared but erroneous assumption that ‘If God is dead, everything is permitted.’ This book is an extended refutation of that popular slogan.” (Pg. xi-xii)
He continues, “I will settle on evangelical Christianity as my target… As the foil to evangelical Christianity, I will focus on atheism. Why? Because I am an atheist. I do not adopt atheism lightly or arbitrarily. I gave strong reasons for atheism in my parts of a previous debate book with an evangelical Christian. That previous work rebuts the charge that atheism is intellectually irresponsible, but the arguments for and against the existence of God do not answer the current question of how morality relates to religion or God.” (Pg. xvi) He adds, "My main goal is not to convert everyone to atheism. It is only to show that atheists need not be arbitrary, unreasonable, ignorant, inconsistent, irresponsible, disreputable, uncaring, or, especially, immoral.” (Pg. xviii)
He states, “there are many more theists who have no qualms about insulting atheists, and there are even more theists who stand on the sidelines and listen to such insults without objecting… These theists are partly responsible for the culture wars that they fight… many theists do stand in the way of communication and resolution of this social problem. Many atheists have contributed to the predicament as well. Christopher Hitchens named his book, ‘God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.’ This provocative subtitle … is not true, and it will not contribute to constructive conversation or mutual comprehension. Richard Dawkins… suggests that theists are mentally ill… Sam Harris … [acts] as if religious faith has ended and secular reason is the only future… [Daniel] Dennett suggests that religious people are under a spell… Earlier, Dennett among others labeled atheists ‘brights’ and religious people ‘dims.’ Again, who holds serious discussions with dim people who are under spells or with people who announce that YOU are dim or under a spell?” (Pg. 10)
He observes, “Even if Hitler was not an atheist, he was probably not deeply religious, and Stalin and Mao were atheists and even antireligious. There is also no denying that Stalin and Mao were monsters… Nonetheless, Stalin and Mao were not immortal BECAUSE they were atheists… other aspect[s] of their personalities and ideologies could explain why they became mass murderers. If it does, then it was not their atheism that made them bad. It was their independent character flaws.” (Pg. 27)
He argues, “It is morally wrong for [someone] to hit you for no reason. If that is morally wrong, then it is also morally wrong for you to hit him for you to hit him for no reason… It might sound as if this little argument simply applies the Golden Rule. It does not. In fact, the Golden Rule is not so golden when you look at it carefully… I would have men (and women!) give me a million dollars. Does that mean that I should or must give them a million dollars? Of course not… A judge who sentences a criminal to jail would not want the criminal to sentence him (the judge) to jail. Does that mean that the judge should … not sentence the criminal?... What really makes certain acts immoral is not what I or anyone wants but, instead, that such acts cause harm to other people for no good enough reason.” (Pg. 63-65)
He says, “all the readers of this book, I hope, will agree that all rational humans---including women and slaves as well as citizens of foreign countries and believers in other religions---should be seen as falling in the protected class. It is just as wrong to harm them as any other person. The crucial point here is that this commonsensical view of morality has no need of God… This harm-based account of morality is totally secular. As a result, it can be accepted by atheists, agnostics… and even by evangelical Christians… That acceptability across the board is one of its advantages.” (Pg. 74-75) He adds, “even if we cannot say WHY it is immoral to cause unjustified harm to others, that should not make us doubt that it IS immoral for moral agents to cause unjustified harm to others.” (Pg. 77)
He points out, “Even if God did exist and did issue known commands, why would you and I be morally required to obey them? One common answer is that God will punish us if we disobey Him… but that reason would hardly be a moral duty… Another common answer is that we owe God gratitude for creating us. However, although children should also be grateful to their parents for creating them, children do not have a moral obligation to do everything their parents tell them to do. Yet another common answer is that God the father knows best, so, if God tells us that an act is morally wrong, it is. But how do we know that God is always correct? Unless we have some independent reason to believe that certain acts are morally wrong, we have no reason to believe that God is correct when He indicates to us … that those acts are morally wrong.” (Pg. 101)
He argues, “Many theists … [claim] that God could not command rape because his commands flow necessarily from his nature. That dogma does not solve the problem, however, both because commands that flow from a god’s nature can still be arbitrary… and because, even if the Christian God is all-good by his very nature, we cannot know that He would not command rape unless we assume that rape is immoral for some independent reason. But if there is such an independent reason against rape, then that reason is what makes rape morally wrong.” (Pg. 106)
He summarizes, “On my harm-based account, what makes an act immoral is that it causes harm or fails to prevent harm to others… The fact that an act causes harm to others is a reason not to do that act, and the fact that an act prevents harm to others is a reason to do that act. There is, then, always a reason to be moral on this secular account.” (Pg. 117)
He recalls, “I used to be an evangelical Christian. Now I am an atheist. [Hebrews 10:26-27] implies that even Christ’s death cannot get me out of Hell. But this gives me nothing to lose by acting immorally and nothing to gain by acting morally. Whether I lie, cheat, and steal---or whether I convert back to Christianity---cannot ever have any effect on my ultimate fate, according to this verse. Hence, Heaven and Hell supply me, among others, with no reason to be moral. It’s lucky that I believe in a secular reason to be moral!” (Pg. 125-126)
This book will be “must reading” for those looking for secular theories of ethics, or for critiques of religious theories of ethics.
Read
November 17, 2020Armstrong endeavors to prove why morality has nothing essential to do with religion. He claims that the statement "god is dead" has nothing to say about what is permitted or not.
I must say i find that his tone throughout the book as fair and balanced. He is very clearly defending a non-religious secular morality but he does so with such respect and civility. He does not engage in bad mouthing religious believers or ideas.
His argument is that morality is a real thing and its importance is undeniable. This is rarely said anymore in our relativistic age. But we have reasons to be moral that are thoroughly secular. Armstrong goes about his task by answering a series of questions which in the end reveal why religion is not necessary for morality. the questions are:
1. are all atheists morally bad?
2. Do secular societies filled with Atheist become corrupt?
3. Does objective morality make any sense without God?
4. Do atheists have any reason to be moral?
5. Can atheists know what is morally right or wrong without the guidance of God.?
I think it is a very fine and eye-opening argument he puts forward. Many of us can learn how to discuss tendentious questions by studying this masterful exposition.
The author does not believe that God is a necessary requirement to being Moral. It may in fact be contradictory.. He puts a lot of faith in the harm-based conception of morality. The idea that many of our questions regarding what is moral or not can be answered or avoided by understanding if someone is unjustly harmed by our actions. Religion he states does provide guidance and comfort to people. The secular belief does not. It accepts that there are questions we will not be sure of and that a great deal of anxiety may result as a consequence.. But the fact that secularists cannot provide this "security" does not mean we should automatically stipulate that we need a God. This is not a convincing argument.
Morality has nothing essential to do with religion or with God, so atheists need not be immoral in any way,,,,
Humans are moral agents because they are free and have free will…. The only kind of freedom needed or useful here involves the ability to reflect on and respond to reasons….humans are able to reflect on the reasons for or against their choices in many cases.
I must say i find that his tone throughout the book as fair and balanced. He is very clearly defending a non-religious secular morality but he does so with such respect and civility. He does not engage in bad mouthing religious believers or ideas.
His argument is that morality is a real thing and its importance is undeniable. This is rarely said anymore in our relativistic age. But we have reasons to be moral that are thoroughly secular. Armstrong goes about his task by answering a series of questions which in the end reveal why religion is not necessary for morality. the questions are:
1. are all atheists morally bad?
2. Do secular societies filled with Atheist become corrupt?
3. Does objective morality make any sense without God?
4. Do atheists have any reason to be moral?
5. Can atheists know what is morally right or wrong without the guidance of God.?
I think it is a very fine and eye-opening argument he puts forward. Many of us can learn how to discuss tendentious questions by studying this masterful exposition.
The author does not believe that God is a necessary requirement to being Moral. It may in fact be contradictory.. He puts a lot of faith in the harm-based conception of morality. The idea that many of our questions regarding what is moral or not can be answered or avoided by understanding if someone is unjustly harmed by our actions. Religion he states does provide guidance and comfort to people. The secular belief does not. It accepts that there are questions we will not be sure of and that a great deal of anxiety may result as a consequence.. But the fact that secularists cannot provide this "security" does not mean we should automatically stipulate that we need a God. This is not a convincing argument.
Morality has nothing essential to do with religion or with God, so atheists need not be immoral in any way,,,,
Humans are moral agents because they are free and have free will…. The only kind of freedom needed or useful here involves the ability to reflect on and respond to reasons….humans are able to reflect on the reasons for or against their choices in many cases.
August 24, 2025
In today's world, the concept of morality is integrated with religion. A person's morality is determined by how devoted they are to their religion. The fact that these fallacies are accepted worldwide makes one question how "sapiens" humanity truly is. Godless, infidel, unbeliever, atheist... I don't know which term you use, but to think that people who fit these descriptions are devoid of morality is nothing short of foolish. In fact, upon a closer look, you can see how two-faced, contemptible, and lacking in morals so-called "religious" and thus "moral" people are. You only have to look around you for a moment. Or perhaps in the mirror...
In his book "Moral Without God," Walter Sinnott-Armstrong explains why morality and religion should not be considered as one. He tells us that atheists are also morally good people and even have a better moral structure than many who are bound by religious beliefs.
TR:
Ahlak kavramı günümüz dünyasında din ile birlikte bütünleştiriliyor. Bir insanın ahlaklı olup olmamasını onun ne kadar dinine bağlı olduğu belirliyor. Bu safsataların tüm dünya genelinde kabul görüyor olması ise insanlığın ne denli "sapien" olduğunu sorgulatıyor elbette. Dinsiz, kafir, inançsız, tanrısız, allahsız... Hangi kavramı kullanırsınız bilemem fakat bu kavramlara karşılık gelen kişilerin ahlaktan uzak olduğunu düşünmek tamamen ahmaklıktan başka bir şey değildir. Hatta derinlemesine bakıldığında sözüm ona dindar ve böylelikle de ahlaklı olmuş insanların ne kadar iki yüzlü, aşağılık, ahlak yoksunu olduğunu görebilirsiniz. Çevrenize kısa bir süre bakmanız yeterlidir. Ya da belki de aynaya...
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Tanrısız Ahlak" kitabında ahlak ve dinin neden bir olarak değerlendirilmemesi gerektiğini anlatıyor. Ateistlerin de ahlaki açıdan iyi insanlar olduğunu ve hatta birçok dini inanca bağlı kesimden daha da iyi bir ahlak yapısına sahip olduğunu bizlere anlatıyor.
In his book "Moral Without God," Walter Sinnott-Armstrong explains why morality and religion should not be considered as one. He tells us that atheists are also morally good people and even have a better moral structure than many who are bound by religious beliefs.
TR:
Ahlak kavramı günümüz dünyasında din ile birlikte bütünleştiriliyor. Bir insanın ahlaklı olup olmamasını onun ne kadar dinine bağlı olduğu belirliyor. Bu safsataların tüm dünya genelinde kabul görüyor olması ise insanlığın ne denli "sapien" olduğunu sorgulatıyor elbette. Dinsiz, kafir, inançsız, tanrısız, allahsız... Hangi kavramı kullanırsınız bilemem fakat bu kavramlara karşılık gelen kişilerin ahlaktan uzak olduğunu düşünmek tamamen ahmaklıktan başka bir şey değildir. Hatta derinlemesine bakıldığında sözüm ona dindar ve böylelikle de ahlaklı olmuş insanların ne kadar iki yüzlü, aşağılık, ahlak yoksunu olduğunu görebilirsiniz. Çevrenize kısa bir süre bakmanız yeterlidir. Ya da belki de aynaya...
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Tanrısız Ahlak" kitabında ahlak ve dinin neden bir olarak değerlendirilmemesi gerektiğini anlatıyor. Ateistlerin de ahlaki açıdan iyi insanlar olduğunu ve hatta birçok dini inanca bağlı kesimden daha da iyi bir ahlak yapısına sahip olduğunu bizlere anlatıyor.
April 1, 2023
Armstrong, the writer, who, without calling his name ying yang, has created a literary product of this philosophy. i thought I'd say at the beginning what I was going to say at the end.
In part, the theist-atheist conflict has created in some parts of the book. He wrote quite harsh criticisms and analyses in a subtle style, tried to explain binary phenomena such as heaven-hell, good-evil, sin-reward, right-wrong in an objective language by passing them through his own thought filter, and not in the way that societies understand and perceive. Especially on the subject of morality, theists say; "every commandment that God puts is absolutely true. that is why it is the moral one." he processes all binary phenomena through his principle.
well, let's go a little outside the flow of the book and evaluate it ourselves. Is it necessary to be a theist to capture the moral when we put it through our own mental filter? is it possible to be a salt good person? how should the nature of good and evil be. what is good? what is bad? are the rules that vary according to time and place acceptable morally or non-morally? what is the phenomenon of morality? what is morally acceptable? ... by adding on these questions that I have raised without thinking too much, you can filter the questions through your own mind, step out of the perceptual good-evil index of society, create the nature of good and evil according to yourself, and name your self within this nature.
because I can say that the author talked to himself in this book. it's a ying-yang.
In part, the theist-atheist conflict has created in some parts of the book. He wrote quite harsh criticisms and analyses in a subtle style, tried to explain binary phenomena such as heaven-hell, good-evil, sin-reward, right-wrong in an objective language by passing them through his own thought filter, and not in the way that societies understand and perceive. Especially on the subject of morality, theists say; "every commandment that God puts is absolutely true. that is why it is the moral one." he processes all binary phenomena through his principle.
well, let's go a little outside the flow of the book and evaluate it ourselves. Is it necessary to be a theist to capture the moral when we put it through our own mental filter? is it possible to be a salt good person? how should the nature of good and evil be. what is good? what is bad? are the rules that vary according to time and place acceptable morally or non-morally? what is the phenomenon of morality? what is morally acceptable? ... by adding on these questions that I have raised without thinking too much, you can filter the questions through your own mind, step out of the perceptual good-evil index of society, create the nature of good and evil according to yourself, and name your self within this nature.
because I can say that the author talked to himself in this book. it's a ying-yang.
May 13, 2019
Yazar, kitapta birçok tabu yüzünden konuşulamayan bir konu olan, teist ve ateist ahlak’ı temel alıyor. Böylesine çarpıcı isimli( ve Tanrısız ifadesinin üstü çizilmesi de dahil) bir kitapta her iki ahlaksallık için de daha güçlü argümanlar beklerdim. Bunlarla beraber, her iki tarafın da tabularını bırakıp, diyaloğu arttırmaları için bir fener niteliği taşıyor. Argümanların zayıflığı dışında, çevirisi ve dilsel akışını beğendim.
February 4, 2019
Ahlak Felsefesi üzerine hem teolojik hem de felsefi yaklaşımla; hem teist hem de ateist penceresinden bakabilme becerisiyle o kadar derinlikli bir argüman oluşturmuş ki, fevkalade.
Bir Evangelik Hıristiyan olarak başlayan yaşam serüvenine ateist olarak devam eden Sinnot-Armstrong ahlakın Tanrı’nın ve dinin tekelinde olmadığını etkileyici analizlerle irdeliyor.
Şiddetle okunmasını öneririm.
Bir Evangelik Hıristiyan olarak başlayan yaşam serüvenine ateist olarak devam eden Sinnot-Armstrong ahlakın Tanrı’nın ve dinin tekelinde olmadığını etkileyici analizlerle irdeliyor.
Şiddetle okunmasını öneririm.
August 31, 2025
İçinden anotatelediğim çok şey var, güzelce toparlanması lazım AMA:
-İslam coğrafyasından bir okuyucu olarak kitabın çok kapsayıcı olduğunu düşünmüyorum (sadece Evangelistler ve hıristiyanlar üzerinden ele alınıyor diyebiliriz)
-Ateistlerin ahlaksız olduğunu düşünmüyorduk ki zaten 😔 neden Ahlakı epistemolojik olarak tanrısız ele alıp alamayacağımızı gerekçelendirmediniz
-İslam coğrafyasından bir okuyucu olarak kitabın çok kapsayıcı olduğunu düşünmüyorum (sadece Evangelistler ve hıristiyanlar üzerinden ele alınıyor diyebiliriz)
-Ateistlerin ahlaksız olduğunu düşünmüyorduk ki zaten 😔 neden Ahlakı epistemolojik olarak tanrısız ele alıp alamayacağımızı gerekçelendirmediniz
November 8, 2018
3 1/2 stars
August 29, 2021
written with basic sentences, arguments could more better(similar with the name of the book) and ideas written in other titles repeatedly.
May 1, 2022
Bazı tekrarlara gitmiş olmasının yanında önemli bir kitap. Ahlak ve din arasındaki bağlantıyı çok iyi anlatıyor ve bence ahlaklı olmak için insanın kendi içine dönmesi gereğini de gösteriyor.
November 8, 2024
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong'un Tanrısız Ahlak (İngilizce: Morality Without God?) adlı eseri, ahlak felsefesi ve din arasındaki ilişkiye dair derinlemesine bir inceleme sunan etkileyici bir çalışma. Kitap, ahlaki değerlerin ve normların varlığı için Tanrı'ya veya herhangi bir ilahi kaynağa ihtiyaç olup olmadığını sorguluyor ve bu soruya kapsamlı ve analitik bir yanıt arıyor.
Sinnott-Armstrong, kitabında ahlakın kökenlerinin dinden bağımsız olarak da temellendirilebileceğini savunuyor. Ahlakın objektif ve evrensel olabileceğini, ancak bunun Tanrısal bir otoriteye dayandırılması gerekmediğini iddia ediyor ve mükemmel bir şekilde de gerçeklendiriyor!. Bu görüş, dinî inançlara dayalı ahlak anlayışlarına meydan okuyor ve seküler bir ahlak anlayışının nasıl mümkün olabileceğini açıklıyor.
Yazar argümanlarını, derin felsefi temellere dayalıdır ve geniş bir literatüre dayandırıyor. Sinnott-Armstrong, ahlaki sorumluluk, iyi ve kötü kavramları, etik kuramlar ve ahlakın toplum içindeki rolü gibi konuları derinlemesine ele alıyorr. Bu konuları işlerken, hem dini temellere dayalı ahlak anlayışlarına karşı argümanlar sunuyor hem de seküler bir ahlak anlayışının temellerini nasıl oluşturabileceğimizi açıklıyor.
Kitabın dili, akademik olmasına rağmen erişilebilir, onu baştan söylemekte fayda var. Bu da hem felsefi tartışmalara ilgi duyan okuyucular hem de daha geniş bir okuyucu kitlesi için eseri değerli. Sinnott-Armstrong’un, ahlakın kaynaklarını ve ahlaki değerlerin din dışı bir temelde nasıl inşa edilebileceğini açıklaması, kitapta sunulan tartışmaları hem ilginç hem de oldukça aydınlatıcı.
Sonuç olarak, Tanrısız Ahlak, ahlak felsefesine ilgi duyanlar için önemli bir eser olarak öne çıkıyor. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, ahlakın dinden bağımsız olarak ele alınabileceği argümanını güçlü ve ikna edici bir şekilde sunuyor. Walter'ın dediği gibi, dindarların ateistleri ve agnostikleri "ahlaksız" diye yaftalaması için, zaten dine inanmayan bu kesimin, din dışındaki başka değerlere karşı yapmış olduğu ahlaksızlıkları kanıtlamaları gerekiyor. Mutlaka okumanız gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
Sinnott-Armstrong, kitabında ahlakın kökenlerinin dinden bağımsız olarak da temellendirilebileceğini savunuyor. Ahlakın objektif ve evrensel olabileceğini, ancak bunun Tanrısal bir otoriteye dayandırılması gerekmediğini iddia ediyor ve mükemmel bir şekilde de gerçeklendiriyor!. Bu görüş, dinî inançlara dayalı ahlak anlayışlarına meydan okuyor ve seküler bir ahlak anlayışının nasıl mümkün olabileceğini açıklıyor.
Yazar argümanlarını, derin felsefi temellere dayalıdır ve geniş bir literatüre dayandırıyor. Sinnott-Armstrong, ahlaki sorumluluk, iyi ve kötü kavramları, etik kuramlar ve ahlakın toplum içindeki rolü gibi konuları derinlemesine ele alıyorr. Bu konuları işlerken, hem dini temellere dayalı ahlak anlayışlarına karşı argümanlar sunuyor hem de seküler bir ahlak anlayışının temellerini nasıl oluşturabileceğimizi açıklıyor.
Kitabın dili, akademik olmasına rağmen erişilebilir, onu baştan söylemekte fayda var. Bu da hem felsefi tartışmalara ilgi duyan okuyucular hem de daha geniş bir okuyucu kitlesi için eseri değerli. Sinnott-Armstrong’un, ahlakın kaynaklarını ve ahlaki değerlerin din dışı bir temelde nasıl inşa edilebileceğini açıklaması, kitapta sunulan tartışmaları hem ilginç hem de oldukça aydınlatıcı.
Sonuç olarak, Tanrısız Ahlak, ahlak felsefesine ilgi duyanlar için önemli bir eser olarak öne çıkıyor. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, ahlakın dinden bağımsız olarak ele alınabileceği argümanını güçlü ve ikna edici bir şekilde sunuyor. Walter'ın dediği gibi, dindarların ateistleri ve agnostikleri "ahlaksız" diye yaftalaması için, zaten dine inanmayan bu kesimin, din dışındaki başka değerlere karşı yapmış olduğu ahlaksızlıkları kanıtlamaları gerekiyor. Mutlaka okumanız gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
November 15, 2018
Very well argued and thorough. The most important part of this book in my opinion, however, is the message it conveys about how Atheists and Theists have to learn from each other and how we should tolerate one another's beliefs.
The book tends to get rather repetitive though, where the same core point appears in almost every chapter.
The book tends to get rather repetitive though, where the same core point appears in almost every chapter.
April 17, 2024
I think the author's choice of book title is wrong. In the book, he tries to prove morality without god by merely presenting arguments against the moral understanding of religions. In general, the only reason he gives is that something can be ''bad'' independent of God because it causes harm to a person for no reason. So what makes what we call harm bad? Is there an evolutionary reason for this? Why is there a morality independent of our views? The author does not explain this.
I generally agree with some of his objections. Of course, an atheist can also have good moral. Even though we are on the same page with the author in these parts, I think that the book is a work that has failed to achieve its purpose in general, as it does not give any reasonable reason for godless morality.
******************************************************************************
Yazarın kitap ismi ile ilgili seçimi bence yanlış. Kitapta tanrısız ahlakı sadece dinlerin ahlak anlayışlarına karşı savlar getirerek ispatlamaya çalışıyor. Genel olarak verdiği tek neden bir şey tanrıdan bağımsız kötü olabilir çünkü kişiye nedensizce zarar verir. Peki zarar vermek dediğimiz şeyi kötü yapan şey ne? Bunun evrimsel bir nedeni mi var? Neden bizim görüşlerimizden bağımsız bir ahlak var ortada? Yazar bunu açıklamıyor?
Dinlerin ahlak teorilerine getirdiği itirazlara genellikle katılıyorum. Ateist de gayet tabi iyi ahlaklı olabilir. Yazarla bu kısımlarda aynı sayfada olsak da tanrısız ahlakla ilgili hiçbir makul neden göstermediği için kitabın genel anlamda amacına ulaşamamış bir eser olduğu görüşündeyim.
I generally agree with some of his objections. Of course, an atheist can also have good moral. Even though we are on the same page with the author in these parts, I think that the book is a work that has failed to achieve its purpose in general, as it does not give any reasonable reason for godless morality.
******************************************************************************
Yazarın kitap ismi ile ilgili seçimi bence yanlış. Kitapta tanrısız ahlakı sadece dinlerin ahlak anlayışlarına karşı savlar getirerek ispatlamaya çalışıyor. Genel olarak verdiği tek neden bir şey tanrıdan bağımsız kötü olabilir çünkü kişiye nedensizce zarar verir. Peki zarar vermek dediğimiz şeyi kötü yapan şey ne? Bunun evrimsel bir nedeni mi var? Neden bizim görüşlerimizden bağımsız bir ahlak var ortada? Yazar bunu açıklamıyor?
Dinlerin ahlak teorilerine getirdiği itirazlara genellikle katılıyorum. Ateist de gayet tabi iyi ahlaklı olabilir. Yazarla bu kısımlarda aynı sayfada olsak da tanrısız ahlakla ilgili hiçbir makul neden göstermediği için kitabın genel anlamda amacına ulaşamamış bir eser olduğu görüşündeyim.
August 1, 2022
Atheophobia and religious bigotry fuels rage and adds to much misinformation and distrust when debates about god are the main topic. They are mostly conversation stoppers. Those who are the victims are mostly lay audiences and unfortunately, they're more than willing to adopt views than to analyze them (believer or not) for their soundness or cogency. This means that atheists have to answer questions that may have been otherwise unconventional and not even slightly controversial but the debate today is not only limited to academics or the specialist and for this reason, books like these are of tremendous value for the public audience. I couldn't write a book liked this because I can't take god based morality seriously, (I have grew up since then and now I think we have to write books like this) and even besides that, it just takes a lot of patience to deal with claims that are so passionately inherently anti-atheistic as much of them are, (at least based on traditional reading of religion), and show little to no willingness for change.
But regardless of how I feel (it's logically irrelevant), the response is a must have and it's a good thing that Wielenberg and Armstrong have engaged with this constant rhetoric.
I deducted one star because the author could have mentioned very briefly some Platonic or non-natural or even non-hedonistic accounts of morality for the sake of displaying the varieties off secular reasoning when it comes to morality (Arnhart or maybe a bit of Darwall?). All said, it's a short and accessible work more of which is not doubt yet to come.
But regardless of how I feel (it's logically irrelevant), the response is a must have and it's a good thing that Wielenberg and Armstrong have engaged with this constant rhetoric.
I deducted one star because the author could have mentioned very briefly some Platonic or non-natural or even non-hedonistic accounts of morality for the sake of displaying the varieties off secular reasoning when it comes to morality (Arnhart or maybe a bit of Darwall?). All said, it's a short and accessible work more of which is not doubt yet to come.
January 31, 2010
This is a good, short book arguing that God and religion are not necessary for morality. Sinnott-Armstrong spends a chapter each arguing (1) that atheists are not inherently any worse than theists, (2) that a society of non-believers will not devolve into corruption and immorality (here he analyzes various studies which show correlations between atheism/theism and immoral behaviors), (3) a secular morality can be based on the harm principle, (4) traditional Divine Command Theory is problematic as a standard for objective morality, (5) the secular theory of morality gives people at least as good a reason to be moral as the religious morality, and (6) the secular theory of morality makes moral knowledge more accessible than Divine Command Theory. In addition to that, he has an introduction and conclusion. The book is good as an introduction to the issue, but lacks a careful analysis in some places. The main weakness, I think, is the author's treatment of Biblical texts. Although he offers a plausible face-value reading, the over-emphasis on this in some of the chapters leaves him vulnerable to more sophisticated Christian apologists coming along and bashing his ignorance of "proper interpretation of the texts." In any case, a good book by a good philosopher.
August 28, 2012
One of my favorite books on the subject of God and morality. It is one of those controversial subjects and taboos in society since many people believe that religion (particularly Christianity) is the source, and foundation, of morality. Armstrong shows that this is not the case since morality can indeed be independent of all the religions and showed why the conservative religious account of morality is problematic. While it can be disputed as to whether Armstrong successfully demonstrated that morality is independent of God's will as well as his positive account of morality(I personally liked the arguments) he nonetheless exhibited virtues of the principle of charity and civility that you will less likely find in the New Atheist books. Armstrong is able to express his sympathy for the value of religion but was also able to criticize it in ways that is not hard to swallow for a conservative Christian who desires to understand the other perspective. I actually recommended this to my Atheist friend, after he read it he said "If I were to recommend an atheist book to my father, who is a conservative Christian, I would recommend this one" (paraphrase). This comes to show (if not prove) that the book is friendly to the wider audience including Christians.
November 24, 2009
Concilatory in its intentions, this book argues that the existence of God, belief in God, divine revelation, or a divine lawgiver are not necessary for morality, and that atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, and members of non-Abrahamic faiths can be just as moral as Christians. He offers a harm-based morality as one alternative, and points out the weaknesses in God-based morality. One particular statement he shows false is "If God is dead, everything is permitted." His objective is to make atheists less scary to Christians and to counter the ad hominem arguments so often directed against them individually and as a group. Free thinkers may find him over-cautious and bending over too far backwards to not offend Christians, particularly Evangelicals, whose views he wishes to modify.
March 20, 2014
An engaging read, but Sinnott-Armstrong's "harm-based" morality is not an objective morality in any tangible way. That means it is not *really* useful for the sorts of things people use traditional moral systems for. If he had qualified it in that way, I would have been more interested.
I was interested by Sinnott-Armstrong's desire that atheists and theists be better friends, but I found that he couldn't resist taking shots (even cheap shots) at Christianity throughout. All in all, he is very assured of his intellectual superiority.
I was interested by Sinnott-Armstrong's desire that atheists and theists be better friends, but I found that he couldn't resist taking shots (even cheap shots) at Christianity throughout. All in all, he is very assured of his intellectual superiority.
July 27, 2012
I read this on the recommendation to a friend (not of a friend; someone else suggested it to this friend) to explore how morality can stand without God. Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher. A professional one who teaches at a university and everything. So the fact that his characterizations of theistic positions regarding morality and really poor arguments were just disappointing as can be.
October 28, 2013
This seemed . . . fuzzy. Not clear, a little wishy-washy, no real stand. I do believe it's good to listen to others' thoughts with an open mind, but not to the point that your own thoughts end up a fuzzy, foggy mess.
Want to read
October 6, 2010Millions of atheists and agnostics live good lives without doing harm to other people....but theists do not seem to understand how this can be possible. So they should read this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews