“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”

[MURAI]

“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”—Dostoevsky


Morality and God—the two go hand-in-hand, don’t they? God, speaking through a prophet, earthly son, angel, occultist or science fiction writer (in the curious case of Mr. L.Ron), lays down a set of earthly rules for his followers to follow if they aim to please their father, supreme creator and arbiter of the afterlife. This code of ethics, this morality is to some religions and Christian sects, as important as faith itself. Dostoevsky stated, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” furthering the bond between God and morality.

What if God does not exist? Does this lay morality and ethics on its head? Who is the new arbiter of right and wrong? What actions will be deemed good or evil? And without God and his tempting reward of heaven, and not so tempting punishment of eternal damnation, is there any actual meaning in ethics and morality? Or, as Voltaire stated: (and probably the inspiration for old Fyodor’s aphorism) “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Can man accept a morality and ethics based not on some supernatural creation and basis for judgment in the afterlife, but merely for his own temporal earthly benefit? Or is this too impossible? Does man perhaps mistrust his fellow man too much: does jealously, pity, domination, wealth, etc, make such an ethics impossible? Is this why Voltaire made his aphorism?

It is easier to believe in morality if one believes in god(s) and it gives the universe order and a higher meaning. It's not just there but it has functions and purposes. Traditional religions usually teach people to be content with this order and evil originates from twisting it around and not going with it. Being greedy for example, is believed to be wrong because all you're doing is taking from life than doing any giving. Now that I think about it, experiencing divinity is believed to be like feeling at one with life and its order.

But, I doubt morality will cease even if people truely believe there is no god(s). Athiests still can hold morals. If it is not under the name of god, then it will be something else like political leaders, idealogies, money, nature etc depending on the values of those in power or whatever the majority believe in. We naturally make rules to keep society going. We obviously can not just do anything we want then there will be complete chaos and no one will go to work.

Perhaps the Doestoevsky quote would of had more impact to Westerners earlier because they still had a Chrisitian monotheist idea. Probably not to the modern man since we are in this post modern age and one trait is its common belief of multiple truths. The truth has become relative and any dualist belief of good and evil has become vague. Maybe even cartoonish for the modern man to take it seriously. Just another sign that in the West, Christianity has declined and the belief of "One God=One Truth" goes down the drain.

 

[derek]

How indeed morality can be completely disengaged from the concept of God is something most 1st year undergrad courses cover.

You can read 100 introductionary texts to morals and their contingency (or lack thereof) on the concept of (A) God. Hell, I think the issue has been laid to rest, besides the views of a few hacks and the desperate.

 

[speed]

How indeed morality can be completely disengaged from the concept of God is something most 1st year undergrad courses cover.

You can read 100 introductionary texts to morals and their contingency (or lack thereof) on the concept of (A) God. Hell, I think the issue has been laid to rest, besides the views of a few hacks and the desperate.

Ah, the advantages, or disadvantages of being oblivious and free from the bonds and influence of academia.

 

[derek]

Well. I could have put it better, but I think it's a long dead subject. Much like evolution. Why prance around as if it is still a discussion and that everyone can still have an opinion?

 

[speed]

Well. I could have put it better, but I think it's a long dead subject. Much like evolution. Why prance around as if it is still a discussion and that everyone can still have an opinion?

Its dead some places, but perhaps not in most of America. God is alive and well where I am. I--a pagan devotee of Bacchus-- get asked almost every other day if I wish to attend church, and I have the pleasure to hear of the connection between morality and religion all the time.

 

[derek]

Its dead some places, but perhaps not in most of America. God is alive and well where I am. I--a pagan devotee of Bacchus-- get asked almost every other day if I wish to attend church, and I have the pleasure to hear of the connection between morality and religion all the time.

If you can teach this stuff to 150 half asleep undergrads at 10AM during their first few weeks of University (where they are inevitably drunk) I am positive anyone can be made aware of the faults in such a position.

 

[speed]

If you can teach this stuff to 150 half asleep undergrads at 10AM during their first few weeks of University (where they are inevitably drunk) I am positive anyone can be made aware of the faults in such a position.

Not Bible Belt Baptists!

 

[derek]

That's a constant. Oh how I laugh at people with ignorant faith.

 

[OldScratch]

That's a constant. Oh how I laugh at people with ignorant faith.

Some might say there is no other variety of faith...at least in the ecclesiastical sense.

 

[Justin S.]

That's a constant. Oh how I laugh at people with ignorant faith.

Since we are speaking of The Brothers: the Elder's words about "the scoffers" should cause us to give pause.

 

[Justin S.]

Its important to note that the quote is from, as I remember, Ivan Karamazov (a character-not the author) and is representative of many trends of the time.

The fear of morality dying with god is not as simplistic as it may seem.

 

[derbeder]

I thought the quote was from The Devils (or The Possessed). Probably spoken by Kirilov.

 

[speed]

I thought the quote was from The Devils (or The Possessed). Probably spoken by Kirilov.

No, its Ivan. And I uncovered this little tidbit when I did a basic search:

Jean Paul Sartre has said that all of French Existentialism is to be found in Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted.

 

[speed]

Its important to note that the quote is from, as I remember, Ivan Karamazov (a character-not the author) and is representative of many trends of the time.

The fear of morality dying with god is not as simplistic as it may seem.

Years ago I was really into old Fyodor and read everything I could find on him. One of my favorite eccentric philosophers/thinkers Vasily Rozanov, who wrote a very good book on Dostoevsky, speculated of all Fyodors characters, Ivan was the closest to his own mind, but not his heart. Rozanov went so far in his love of Dostoevsky he married his widow who was much older than Rozanov. Thus, he bothered and begged his old wife for information on the great author, and was supposdely told that indeed, many of the struggles Dostoevsky went through himself, were placed in Ivan Karamazov. Moreover, apparently this contradiction between the atheistic western Ivan and the religious eastern Aloysha, was a contradiction Dostoevsky never resolved for himself, and according to Rozanov, he was Ivan-like than anything. Rozanov made these claims when he wrote Dosteovsky and the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor

And as you've stated Justin, and as Bakhtin wrote in The problems of Dostoevsky's poetics, indeed, each character was created by Fyodor to be a true being; or at the very least a human representation of some philosophical idea, and thus Fyodor totally absconded himself from his characters, much like Shakespeare.

And on a side note, I find it interesting how Dostoevsky realy only impacted Petersburg western Russians, and most Russians in fact, are not huge fans. Pushkin, Gogol and Tolstoy remain far more important. I think its because despite his slavic orthodoxism, Dostoevsky totally enbodies the chaos of modern western thought and life, as well as capitalism. Plus, his prose and plotting leaves alot to be desired next to other Russian writers.

 

[derek]

Its important to note that the quote is from, as I remember, Ivan Karamazov (a character-not the author) and is representative of many trends of the time.

The fear of morality dying with god is not as simplistic as it may seem.

It depends on a few things. The definition of God for one. What morality means, for another.

I only really have problems with morality being seen as contingent on God, mainly in the Christian tradition. If God is taken to mean something more like Tao, then perhaps the eventual death of Tao, or it's cessation of resonance, could see the death of morality.

 

[Justin S.]

I am currently writing a paper on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and while going over notes tonight ran across a section that is highly relevant to this discussion. However, I am quite busy so I cannot elaborate much.

Kant says, "Everyone must grant that a law, if it is to hold morally, that is, as a ground of an obligation, must carry with it absolute necessity..."

The "absolute necessity" being the categorical imperative- the command that is unconditional. What source could issue (verb here implies an agent) a command that holds unconditionally? Certainly, this points to a creator, god, first cause, unmoved-mover, etc.

This is what Ivan Karamazov struggles with: If the ground of unconditional moral law does not exist, then morals themselves are conditional and lack "absolute necessity". Morality's foundations set over an abyss, its power degraded to "belief" and "preference", its dwelling cast down into the ever-changing uncertainty and psychology of limited mortals- all is contingent.

Ivan states the without God, all is "permitted". That is not to say that all is "acceptable", of equal worth or esteem, or beyond reproach, but that there is no categorical denial of it, no-thing to appeal to other than a subjective will- there is "freedom" of some sort, which causes man to suffer. This thinking culminates in "The Grand Inquisitor".

While we may criticize this from many angles, we must admit that this warrants our attention, is still the source of major concerns and debates (such as the extent of "relativism"), and would have been particularly salient to a person living in Ivan's time.