Here’s a little something to think about if you’re trying to figure out morality without God.
Earlier today an atheist who rejects the idea that objective morality exists told me that.
“Morality has nothing to do with god. If you link the term morality with the wellbeing of others then there’s no longer any mystery. Objective morality is a made up term. Subjective morality exists – which is the concept that something is defined right or wrong based on its subjective impact on another person. If you take god out of the equation, if something causes someone harm, then it will still be defined as bad, regardless of objective morality. We can work that our for ourselves unless you’re saying that harming someone would be acceptable to all of us if god didn’t exist?”
Basing a standard of morality on doing no harm to others may sound good, but is it?
Fact: God cannot be removed from the morality equation. If you try to remove Him, nothing will add up.
· If you say that what is morally good is that which reduces over-all harm, then on what basis do you validate that assertion as being a proper moral standard?
· If reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense since by defending itself it would increase overall harm to both nations?
o If you say such a nation has the right of self-protection which overrides the principle of reducing harm, then how are you not saying that there is a greater standard of morality to which the moral standard of reducing harm must be subject?
· If reducing harm is the standard of morality, then is it okay to sexually assault a comatose person if no physical or emotional harm is suffered, and the person is never aware of it?
· If reducing harm is the standard of morality, then is it okay for people to lie and commit adultery as long as others don’t find out about it, and there is no physical or emotional harm incurred by anyone?
· If you answered yes to one or both of the two previous questions about rape and adultery, then aren’t you approving of these acts as long as no one is harmed?
· If you answered no to one or both of the questions on rape and adultery, then how is your position consistent with the what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm standard since no harm was suffered by anyone?
· If reducing suffering is what is morally good, then if a society decides to incarcerate Christians because it deems them harmful to that society, would that then be the morally right thing to do?
· Likewise, if reducing suffering is what is morally good and a society decides to incarcerate atheists because it deems them harmful to that society, would that be the morally right thing to do?
· If incarcerating Christians and/or atheists because society says it reduces overall harm is really not the morally right thing to do, then why is it not right since it would be that society’s attempt at reducing overall harm?
· If incarcerating Christians and/or atheists becomes the morally right thing to do because society decides it will reduce overall harm, then can you legitimately complain against the actions of the Nazis and the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies also wanted to reduce overall harm to themselves and preserve their societies?
There are many more of these questions here