God Is Unnecessary As A Basis For Morality And Justice

I would like to open by stating that this argument is very closely tied to the core issue in the Bible. In the book of Genesis when Adam is told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad Adam is being presented with the choice to accept God's rulership over him and his standards of what is right and wrong, or he can take from the tree and decide for himself. Thus it is fitting that when Satan tempts Eve and tells her she can become like God deciding what is right and wrong for herself because that is exactly what the tree was; independence from God by establishing one's own rules for what was right and wrong; essentially morality. Satan manipulated Eve into choosing independence and Adam willfully went along. From a religious point of view Adam and Eve joined Satan in rebellious independence and chose to make their own rules regarding morality. Today we are discussing this same issue. The pro has essentially sided with Satan in this case by arguing that we do not need God to establish what is morally right, wrong and just. I disagree with the pro and hold that God IS necessary for establishing what is morally right, wrong and just. First I want to rebut your points. You are wrong to assume that the principle of least action would lead to a society of thieves becoming unproductive. A society accustomed to theft would take appropriate countermeasures to theft and eventually make theft the path of most action. It could even generate a society better suited to taking advantage of societies around them with the know how to prevent foreigners from stealing from them. Or you could argue that if theft were not morally wrong that particular society would simply have no concept of personal property as the people were free to take as they needed. What you could end up with is a society that works toward the betterment of the whole society through over abundance for the whole in order to eliminate all want or need. My point is that a society of theft would not view theft as we do, those who live in a society where the concept of theft exists and is wrong. Also the progressive tax is direct proof that the majority of of people not part of the elite top in terms of strength and intelligence DO allow for theft to constitute a society. Ask any Republican and they will tell you that the progressive tax is theft. Your premise that Morality stems from self interest is entirely false. Self interest leads to a society that allowed for the systematic imprisonment and extermination of Jews and others during world war 2. A process that also saw the theft of all their possessions. The US saw the same thing happen to the native American population. Those people were killed and driven off their land into small sections of society only to have he government try to further exterminate them by initiating a forced sterilization program. Society turned a blind eye to these atrocities for years for as long as they could and even today many of the injustices still haven't been resolved. This stuff continues to happen in countries were religious and ethnic minorities continue to be openly beaten and have their belongings illegally confiscated all to the approval or complicity of the majority. There is a self interest being played out in these circumstances that appear entirely moral to the members of those societies. But they are not moral. This is all definitely part of a selection process as well. Is it natural? It is within the parameters of what constitutes human behavior but it can be argued that humans are far removed from the natural world. Humans are unique in that our actions aren't dictated by instinctual programming. We are self aware of our existence and, to a degree, our place in the universe. There is no natural selection taking place in our decisions to rape, murder, minimize groups of people, and then turn around with some process of rationalization to morally justify the reasons we did it. But it happens daily and for all these reasons both of your premises are highly flawed if not completely false. And now I'd like to present the first of my arguments. God is necessary for a basis of Morality because mankind's sense of morality and justice is inconsistent and problematic. Throughout my rebuttal I have detailed what happens when people are left to decide what is morally acceptable. Sure, in hindsight we say that those things are morally acceptable, but during the height of the moment when those things happened the majority of people who witnessed it turned a blind eye and many of those committing those crimes never even questioned the morality of what they were doing. Because in those moments the majority of society involved decided it was morally acceptable. The morality of man bends to their own selfish desires. It is only when man has finished running the course and turns around to see the trail of blood and tears smeared across history do they decide it was probably not the right thing do. After which they will declare that have learned better and are thus morally just, right until they repeat the whole process every single time, over and over. We continue to have this trial and error approach to justice and morality and while we try to figure it out and how to implement the execution of laws to uphold those ever changing concepts people are suffering and dying. This is what we have chosen when we decided to figure it out on our own independent from God. It's like if you were to try to play a sport, but everyone kept changing the rules and objectives as you went along. It's frustrating and in the end you have no clear idea what you are even doing on the field. The Principles of morality as set by God are unchanging. They provide a consistent standard that does not bend to the whims of whimsical mankind. We don't have to toil away trying to figure out what is right and wrong. The more we keep trying to change and adjust what is right and wrong to suit our misguided desires the more people will suffer. God is necessary as a basis for morality in order to give people clear direction; a solid foundation.