God Is Unnecessary As A Basis For Morality And Justice

Since I claimed God was unnecessary as a basis for morality and justice, I will attempt to establish a system of morality that consistently produces moral consequences that align with our moral instinct without the relying on the existence of a deity. As there are two primary components of any theory: assumptions and derivations, I will present my arguments in similar order.Premises:1. Morality is the product of interactions driven by self-interest in a society.One common characteristic among moral laws is that they protect the good of everyone in a society. For example, stealing is socially accepted as being morally wrong because a society tolerates stealing would have the following problems:a. Due to the principle of least action, people would not produce but would instead rely on stealing, the option that takes less effort.b. This results in a society where no one would produce because who would have an incentive to produce just for their property to be stolen.c. The group of thieves who dominate and survive in this society must therefore be : very intelligent and/or physically superior. d. Since the group of individuals who possess both favorable traits mentioned in (c) would be a rarity (because they lie at the upper end of a normal distribution) compare to the majority of people who lie at the lower and middle of the distribution, a society tolerating theft would fail to protect the good of everyone .e. By the principle of self-interest, the majority of people who is not at the elite top of the population both in term of intelligence and physical strength would not allow tolerance of theft to constitute a society. 2. Objective Moral Values is unnescessary and all that requires to explain where morality comes from is natural selectionObjective moral values is claimed to exist but there is no other way to find it which make it a useless concept. As each individual in a specie undergoes natural selection, so does societies. It is easy to conceive many societies that have different moral axioms. In the U.S for instance, Hamilton made a axiomatic assumption that all men are created equal. The moral axioms of a society is like traits of an individual. Some proves to be lengthening a society existence in time while others detrimental. For example, imagine a society that tolerate murder and another society that does not. The society that tolerate murder would have quite some problem. Since life is full of conflicts, everyone would just murder anyone they don't like. Those found at the top of this hierachy would naturally be muderous psychopaths. Those underneath would be oppressed to work in slavery for their lives. Furthermore, this would prove to be a very unstable if not impossible hierachy because when it comes to the ability to kill, the majority at the bottom have more than those few at the top of the hierachy. This hierachy if collapse would result in constant killing and the society either stagnate or annihilate itself. Thus, a society that tolerates murder cannot exists and progress through time like one that does not. By these two principles, one can explain any moral virtues and thus God is unnecessary.