如果没有上帝，那么一切都是允许的吗? 《二》 [美国媒体]

If there is no god or gods, then is everything permitted? On what should one base morality in the absence of immortality and God? If there are no strings attached, and if nothing exists after death, why not do immoral things?

问题：
如果没有上帝，那么一切都是允许的吗?在没有永生和上帝的情况下，道德应该以什么为基础?如果没有任何羁绊，如果死后什么都不存在，为什么不做不道德的事情呢?

Sampsa Kallinen
Christians will often claim that the Bible is the foundation of Western morality. This statement is as solid as claiming that arithmetic and algebra are based on math books. Obviously the book is based on 3rd century moral standards and not the other way around. If all that we knew of morality came from the Bible, we should be unable to cherrypick teachings from it. Teachings like “Love thy neighbor” and “Stone thy adulterers” get equal representation in the “good book”, but it is our innate morality, that lets us choose which teachings to follow.

回答四：
基督徒经常声称圣经是西方道德的基础.
（西方认为）这种说法就像宣称算术和代数是基于数学书籍一样可靠.
显然，圣经是公元3世纪的道德标准，而不是现在.

如果我们所有的道德都要由圣经来决定
那么，（圣经就会变得至高无上）我们就无法对圣经取其精华弃其糟粕了.
比如，像“爱你的邻居”和“用石头砸死通奸者”这样的（矛盾的）教义在“善书”
里是同时存在的

但是，这是我们天生的道德
（应该）让我们自己选择遵循（那些矛盾的教义中）哪种来信奉.

Fundamentalists will not bother distinguishing between the two – they will do as the book commands regardless of their own moral compass. This is commonly acknowledged as the foundation for the atrocities committed in the name of one god or another. Even most Christians will agree that fundamentalism is dangerous. What they fail too see, however, is that free interpretation is not much safer. The ambiguous writings of the Bible could be given most dubious interpretations. Bad ideas themselves can be produced without the aid of holy books, but the justifications for actions are harder to come by. But when you manage to convince yourself that god ordains your actions, you will suddenly have much less regard for human opinion.

原教旨主义者是不会费心去区分这两者的——
他们会严格按照书中的命令行事，而不顾自己的道德准则.
通常以“上帝”或另一个“神”的名义犯下暴行
即使是基督徒，大多数人也会同意原教旨主义是危险的.



There is some truth to the claim that the absence of god will elevate humans: we have no one to answer to but ourselves. Yet, it will not make us all kings. When none of us can claim to be any closer to a deity, we arrive at a very humanist notion: we are all worth the same. Without god we lose the means to elevate ourselves above each other. We are not responsible to a higher power, but to each other.

否认上帝将会提升人类的地位，这一说法是有一定道理的:
除了我们自己，没人能回答那些“为什么”的问题.

但是，去掉上帝，也并不是说我们个个都是国王了.
当我们中没有人能声称自己更接近神的时候，
我们就会得出一个非常人道主义的概念:我们所有人平等的.

没有上帝，我们就失去了超越彼此的方法
（注：意思是再也不会有人能宣称他更靠近上帝，从而俯视其他人）
我们不是对更高的权力（上帝）负责，而是所有人都对彼此负责.

The past two millenia have taught the humanity numerous valuable lessons in morality. We have abolished slavery, condemned genocide, relinquished the death sentence and denounced the superiority of the heterosexual male. I am struggling to understand why we should adhere to ancient books that encourage all these shameful chapters of history. None of the better teachings of the Bible or Koran require a religious backdrop. I am convinced we can formulate the “Golden Rule” without fairytales of a crucified messiah or a virgin-teeming paradise. Some will claim that these fantastical tales will better instill the ideas in people, but I must say these are not the greatest stories ever written. We have proven we can be better, morally and literarily.

过去的两千年，给人类上了许多宝贵的道德课
我们废除了奴隶制、谴责了种族灭绝、废除了死刑、谴责了异性恋男性的优越性.
我非常费解的是：
为什么我们现在还要坚持遵从那些鼓励所有这些可耻的历史篇章的古书？

《圣经》或《古兰经》中任何优良的教义都不需要宗教背景.
我坚信：
不需要讲述那些受难的弥赛亚或充满童贞的天堂的童话故事，
我们也能制定（指导道德的）“黄金法则”.

有些人会说，那些奇幻的故事会更好地让人们接受（经书）上的思想.
但我必须说，那些故事根本就不是最优秀的故事.
我们已经证明了（没有经书）我们也能在道德和文学故事方面做得更好

Quite commonly Christians refer to a final judgment that will set the record straight. This is thought to be a great incentive to behave well. Along these lines it is also commonly thought that the atheists’ disregard for afterlife will lead to a propensity for evil. Contradictorily, statistics repeatedly show the opposite to be true: In United States the highest violent crime rates are always found in the most religious states. This correlation is not proof of a causal connection, but certainly religion does not prevent crime. Perhaps the American criminals have read their Bible: Damnation is not the punishment for sin, but for disbelief. Even the worst serial killer is welcome in Christian Heaven if he believes that Jesus was the Son of God. The saint-like Buddhist monk, on the other hand, is holding a one-way ticket to Hell.

相当多的基督徒说：应该看“最后的审判”，
“最后的审判”这个故事是正确的.
也是一个很好的激励故事.
沿着这些思路，人们也普遍认为无神论者对来世的漠视会导致邪恶的倾向.

但是，统计数据一再表明事实恰恰相反:
在美国，暴力犯罪率最高的州总是宗教信仰最虔诚的州.
虽然这种关联并不能证明（宗教虔诚与犯罪率）的因果关系，
但是，可以肯定的是，宗教是不能预防犯罪的.

而且，美国的罪犯们应该也读过圣经：
圣经里的那些凶狠的诅咒并不是针对犯罪的人，而是针对不信教的人.
即使一个最恶的连环杀手，如果他相信耶稣是神的儿子，那么，他在基督教天堂也是受欢迎的.
而另一方面
圣人般的佛教僧侣却要拿着一张通往地狱的单程票（因为他不信上帝）.

There is comfort for some in the religious routine, regardless of the truth behind it. False hope, however, is not an entirely harmless phenomenon. Time spent on prayer could often be better spent on action that will have a genuine impact. When people pray (wish) their children better instead of seeking professional help, they are neglecting their duties as parents in favor of performing useless rituals. False faith can cloud one’s judgement in detrimental ways.
Some people claim they need their faith to get through the day. They enjoy the idea of having a father-like imaginary friend watching over them. I have often wondered whether they realize this is just an excuse to remain a child forever. Sure it is comforting to feel someone else is watching over the big picture and us. But as I mentioned before, leaving things in the hands of an imaginary being is leaving them untended. And humanity does need to look at the big picture.
The greatest gateway drug to religion is the fear of death. The idea of reuniting with our loved ones after death is very compelling – definitely more pleasant than losing loved ones forever. But I do not believe those are the two options we have. Atheists and most Christians will agree that death ends the production of new earthly events, but it will not erase the memories of the people who were left behind. Survivors of the dead will remember them as they were alive on earth. Thus, the spirit and the ideas of the individual will indeed carry on after death, stored as legacy in the memories of future generations. Einstein will write no more theories, but the theory of relativity will survive him and carry on. My dog may be buried in the ground, but I still know what canine front paw masturbation looks like. And if I die tomorrow, you will still have these arguments against religion, eventhough I am no longer here to express them. People live on in everyone they touched during their lifetimes. There is nothing bleak about that.

对一些人来说，不管背后的真相是什么，宗教仪式都是一种安慰.
但是，（举行宗教仪式寄托着）虚假的希望并不是完全无害的.
人们花在祈祷上的时间通常可以更好地花在能产生真正影响的行动上.
当人们祈祷(希望)他们的孩子更好而不是寻求专业的帮助，
做那种无用的（祈祷）仪式，他们就已经忽视了他们作为父母的责任.

一个人的判断力也容易受到那种虚无的信仰所影响.
有些人声称：他们需要自己的信念来度过一天.
他们喜欢有一个父亲般的想象中的朋友来照看他们.
我常常想，他们是否意识到：这只是一个永远做孩子的借口？

当然，感到有人在关注众生，关注我们所有人，（在心理上）是令人踏实的.
但正如我之前提到的：
把所有一切都交给一个想象的存在的（神、上帝）手中
就是（推卸责任）不去照顾它们

不过，人类确实需要从大局出发：
人类对死亡的恐惧是寻求宗教安慰的最重要原因.
在死后与我们所爱的人团聚的想法是非常令人信服的——
这个肯定比永远失去所爱的人更令人愉快.
但我觉得人类是别无选择的.

无神论者和大多数基督徒都会同意死亡结束了新的世俗事件的产生.
但是，一个人的死亡，并不会抹掉后人的记忆.
死者的后人会记住他们，就像他们在地球上还活着一样
因此，个人的精神和思想在死后也是继续存在的，会作为遗产保存在后代的记忆中

爱因斯坦不再写理论，但相对论在他逝世后仍然存在
我的狗可能被埋在地下，但我仍然记得犬类用前爪手淫时是什么样子的.
如果我明天就死了，你们仍然会争辩这些反对宗教的论点.
即使我不再在这里争辩了.
在人的一生中，人们是生活在他们接触的每一个人心上的.
这没有什么可怕的.

I made an interesting observation tending to the palliative care for individuals living out their final weeks in a hospital ward. Preoccupation with the impending death was distinctly a concern of the religious. The secular individuals would focus on the lives they had lived, while the religious would worry about what would happen to them next. It did certainly not seem like their religion was providing them comfort and solace in the face of death – in fact, quite the contrary.There is also a bizarre argument that life without afterlife would be meaningless: that our actions would not matter if death would be the end of it all. As I tried to describe in the previous paragraph, our impact on the world will, in fact, outlive us. But leaving a lasting impact is not the only thing to give meaning to a fleeting, one-time life. Unlike Christians, Muslims or Buddhist, secular people have no expectation of afterlife and will therefore not waste precious time preparing for it. When you believe the life you have is the only one you will ever get, you are very likely to be more invested in making it the best possible life.

对即将来临的死亡的关注显然是宗教人士关心的问题.
（以前）我为那些在医院病房度过最后几周的病人提供姑息治疗时.
曾经观察到一些有趣的现象：

面对即将到来的死亡，
世俗的人会关注他们曾经的生活，而信教的人则会担心接下来会发生什么.
他们的宗教似乎并没有在面对死亡时给他们带来安慰和安慰——事实恰恰相反.

还有一种奇怪的观点认为，没有来生的生命将毫无意义:
如果死亡是一切的终结，那我们所有的行为也没有任何意义.
但是，正如我在前一段中试图描述的那样
事实上，我们对世界的影响将超过我们的寿命.

但是，
人们（对后世）留下持久的影响并不仅仅是为了把意义赋予短暂的、一生只有一次的生命.
与基督徒、穆斯林或佛教徒不同是，
世俗的人对来世没有期望，因此不会浪费宝贵的时间用来为死亡做准备.
当你相信你所拥有的生活是你唯一能得到的生活时，
你很可能会投入更多，让它成为最好的生活

Religion is often perceived as a very personal choice and therefore any critique of it is met with downright hostility. People will fail to see any harm in holding on to a handful of unfounded ideas. However, neither religion nor faith is without implications on a larger scale. There is not a single war on this Earth that is not, at least in part, attributable to religion. The death toll of these wars is only rivalled by the mayhem caused by the anti-condom propaganda in AIDS-ridden Africa. Add genital mutilation, honor killing and subjugation of women and you will be grasping at straws finding the advantages of religion that outweigh all the horror.

宗教通常被认为是一个非常私人的选择，
因此任何对它的批评都会遭到彻底的敌意.
一般来说，人们看不到坚持一些毫无根据的想法有什么害处.
但是，要知道，无论是宗教还是信仰，都会有大范围的（潜在的）影响的.

例如，
地球上没有一场战争不是宗教造成的，至少在某种程度上是这样.
在艾滋病肆虐的非洲，反避孕套宣传所造成的混乱能与战争造成的死亡人数相匹敌.
加上生殖器切割、荣誉杀害和对妇女的征服（等等这些触目惊心的现象）
你就会乱抓救命稻草
你会发现，（在非洲）比起那种种恐怖的事情，宗教（带来的坏事）会好一些.

A more personal faith may be exhonerated of these crimes against humanity, but not of other lethal consequences. There's a reason why only 7% of the top scientists in the world believe in a personal god: Blind faith corrupts rational thinking. As long as people consult their personal feelings as a credible source of information, they are unlikely to discover universal facts. There is no evidence-based argument against vaccination and modern medicine; or in favor of faith healing, homeopathy or crystal therapy. These harmful ideas can only be entertained by an individual with insufficient thirst for evidence.
Humanity was not born with the knowledge we have today. We have spent millenia gathering information and moral understanding, continually passing our knowledge onto future generations so that they may stand on our shoulders and reach goals we could never dream of. It is comforting and easy to hold on to quaint, simplistic ideas of the past, but it is our moral duty to better ourselves for the sake of the future. It is time to let go of the supernatural explanations of the past and delve bravely into the unknown.



Taking a broader perspective, "permitted" is the wrong word to use in this question, because the whole notion of "permitting" in this context depends on the existence of a God. You've trapped yourself in a paradox.So in reality, without a God, is there such a thing as morality? And if so, on what is it based?

从广义来看，“允许”这个词在这个问题上用错了，
因为在这种情况下，
“允许”的整个概念就含有上帝存在的意思在内了（即：“上帝允许”）
你已经陷入了一个悖论.
所以在现实中，如果没有上帝，还有“道德”这个东西吗?
如果是“有”，那么道德又取决于什么？

There have been many interesting debates that center on the question of "how can we have objective morality without a God?" or some variation thereof. From where I sit, the answer is simple. You cannot have objective morality without God, but who said there was such a thing as objective morality in the first place? Morality is by definition a system of value judgments, and value judgments are by definition subjective.What can be objective is not morality, but its basis. We can have an objective basis for morality, on which we can base our judgments. And that is, indeed, what we have. We have, as a society and in general, a system of morality that is largely based on whether actions are harmful or beneficial. This is a sweeping generalization, and we can quibble over it, but in general, we consider actions to be immoral when they cause harm to people or property, and we consider them to be moral when they do not cause harm or, in fact, cause good without a corresponding harm.

有很多有趣的辩论都围绕着“没有上帝，我们如何才能拥有客观的道德?”或者其他（类似）的问题.
从我的角度来看，答案很简单：
没有上帝你就没有客观的道德，但是谁说一开始就有客观的道德呢?

道德在定义上是一个价值判断系统，而价值判断在定义上是主观的.
因此，“道德”不是一个客观的东西，“道德的基础”才是客观的东西.
我们可以有一个客观的道德基础，在此基础上我们可以做出判断.
这就是我们所拥有的.

作为一个社会，总的来说，
我们的道德体系很大程度上是建立在行为是有益还是有害的基础上的.
这是一个笼统的概括，我们可以对此细加讨论.
但总的来说，当行为对人或财产造成伤害时，我们认为它是不道德的，

当“行为”没有造成伤害时，
或者事实上，该“行为”是带来“好”的，没有带来相应的伤害时
我们就认为这个“行为”是道德的.

Interestingly, it is very difficult to see how someone could be "moral" with a God. When you have a God, you are no longer motivated by whether something is harmful or beneficial, whether you can reason that it is "right" or "wrong." You are restricted to what is "permitted" and "not permitted" by your God. As such, you'll find some interesting facts.Fact number one: if you are a theist, I will wager (and probably win) that you do not get your morals from your God. For example, if I were to ask you "under what circumstances do you approve of slavery?" you would most likely answer "None."Yet the Bible clearly permits slavery under certain circumstances. Without God, our morality today teaches us that slavery is not permitted. With God, the Bible tells us that slavery is permitted. Objectively, which is more moral? I hope I do not have to argue for the former.

有趣的是，我们很难理解一个人如何能与神保持“道德”.
当你有了上帝，
你就不会再被什么东西是有益的还是有害的、你是否能推理出它是“对的”还是“错的”所激励了.
你的“道德”已经被限制在上帝的“允许”和“不允许”的范围内.
因此，你会发现一些有趣的事实：

事实一:
如果你是一个有神论者，我打赌(我很可能会赢)你不会从你的上帝那里得到你的“道德”.
例如，如果我问你“在什么情况下你赞成奴隶制”，你很可能会回答“不赞成”.
但是，圣经显然是允许在某些情况下实行奴隶制的.

当今时代我们的道德是教导我们不可实行奴隶制的. 这可不是上帝教导哦.
而上帝——圣经的教导是：允许我们实行奴隶制！
那么，客观上，哪个更道德? 我希望不要逼我为前者辩护.

When you are moral, you will do the right thing because it is right, regardless of whether anyone is watching. If you believe in an all-seeing God who is the dispenser of cosmic justice, someone is always watching. Your good behavior cannot be described as moral. Rather, you are obedient. Obedience to God is a Biblical virtue, praised as a character trait throughout the scriptures. The Bible never praises morality because it is incompatible with doing the right thing because you're told to. That's why obedience is praised while morality is unmentioned in the Good Book.So to say "without God, everything is permitted" is misleading at best, and demonstrably false otherwise. It's only WITH God, which is to say, with an abdication of your role in determining what is and is not moral, that everything is permitted, as long as he permits it, whether or not it's moral in your judgment.Of course, if you are godless and you lack empathy, you will not be able to tell when your actions are harmful, or you will not care. That makes you a danger to the rest of us, and the rest of us will act to protect ourselves from you.It would take a book to cover all the nuances raised by your question, so I need to pick an arbitrary point to stop writing. I'll piiiiick.... this one.

当你有道德的时候，你会做正确的事情，因为它是正确的，不管有没有人在注视着你.
如果你信仰一个无所不见的上帝，他是宇宙正义的传播者，他一直注视着你.
那么，你的“善行”就不能用道德来形容了， 而是用“听话”来形容.

服从“神”在圣经中是一种美德，在圣经中被称赞为一种高尚的品德.
圣经从来没有赞扬“道德”，因为圣经里的“道德”与“做正确的事”是不相容的.
圣经里的“道德” = 服从上帝的旨意.

这就是为什么书里称赞“服从”，却从不提及“道德”.
所以说“没有上帝，一切都是允许的”这句话充其量就是误导
要不然就是彻头彻尾的谬论.

只有在上帝那里，也就是说：
代入上帝，你就已经放弃了自己的角色——决定“什么是道德”的角色.
那么，（按逻辑来说，抽掉上帝这个角色之后）确实是“不再有阻力，一切都可以为所欲为”了.
已经是“只要上帝允许，不管你自己的判断是否道德”了.

当然，如果你不信神，又缺乏同理心，
你就无法判断自己的行为是否有害，或者是你根本不在乎是否有害（伤害到他人）.
这会让你成为其他人的危险，其他人会采取行动保护自己，阻止你带来的伤害.

你这个问题（其实很宏大），需要写一大本书来阐述其中的细微差别
所以我就在写到哪停到哪. 就在这里停笔好了.

Mark Hamric
I have addressed this elsewhere on the site but I can't remember where so here it goes again. Morality is relative and is defined by the ruling class. If a society says it is ok to sacrifice little girls, then they will do so without fear. If a society says it is ok to abort pregnancies in the last trimester then they will do so and if society decides it is ok for women to become fetal farms to advance stem cell research they will do it.

回答六：
我已经在网站的其他地方回答了这个问题，但我不记得它在哪里，所以在这里再回答一次：
道德是相对的，是由统治阶级来定义的.

如果一个社会说牺牲小女孩是可以的，那么他们就会毫不畏惧地这么做.
如果一个社会说在最后三个月流产是可以的，那么他们就会这么做.
如果一个社会认为可以把女性变为胚胎农场来推进干细胞研究，那么他们就会这么做.

Secular Humanism has no anchor. They say we know it is wrong to murder, but ancient Romans glorified it with Gladiators. Of course the Romans were not godless but worshiped idols which did not speak so they created the rules as it suited them and I see no reason why Secular Humanists would do any better.

世俗人文主义（无神论）是没有（道德）根基的.
他们说我们知道杀人是不对的，但古罗马人却用角斗士来颂扬杀人.

当然，罗马人不是不信神的，而是崇拜偶像，但是偶像是不会说话的，
所以，他们就创造了适合自己的（道德）规则.
我并不觉得世俗的人文主义者会做得更好.



Christopher Kingery
The short answer is, only if you think the source of morality comes entirely from God. Thankfully, most of the intelligent, free-thinking world understands that this is not the case. FYI, though I am an atheist personally, an argument can be made for morality existing outside of, but still in conjunction with, God. Obviously this discussion is of the form of God defined, among other things, as being all-good. The question is, do we have goodness because God is all-good, or is God all-good because there is goodness?
To rephrase, we assume that God is all-good in every thing that he does. However, are those actions defined as good because God is good, or is God, in the all-knowing form he is defined as, following some absolute moral standard that only he is aware of that exists outside of himself?

回答八：
简而言之，只有你认为道德的源泉完全来自上帝.
幸运的是，大多数聪明、自由思考世人都明白事实并非如此

告诉你好了，虽然我个人是个无神论者，
但我认为道德存在于上帝之外，但仍然与上帝有关.
很明显，这个讨论是以上帝的形式定义的，除其他外，都是善的

问题是，因为上帝是全善的，所以我们就有“善行”？
或者说，因为有“善行” 所以上帝是全善？

换句话说，我们假定神在他所做的每一件事上都是“全善”的.
但是，这些行为是否因为上帝是善而被定义为善？
或者：“上帝”以无所不知的形式被定义为“遵循某种只有他自己知道的存在于自身之外的绝对道德标准”?
（译注：此段绕来绕去，是原文如此）

To more directly address your last question, "If there are no strings attached, and if nothing exists after death, why not do immoral things?" There are plenty of reasons not to act immorally. First and foremost, regardless of your stance on God, most reasonable people agree that a society where everybody were to act immorally with reckless abandon would completely fall apart. Society depends on mutual respect and cooperation. This is the whole basis of social-contract theory, which itself is an alternative moral theory to that of God being the source of morality.

直接地回答你的问题最后的部分：
“如果没有羁绊，如果死后什么都不存在，为什么不做不道德的事情?”
有很多理由不做非道德的事情.

首先，最重要的是，不管你对上帝的立场如何，大多数通情达理的人都认为，
如果一个社会里的每个人都在不道德地、不计后果地放纵自己，那么这个社会就会彻底分崩离析.

社会取决于相互尊重和相互合作.这是社会契约论的全部基础.
社会契约论本身就是一种道德理论，它取代了上帝作为道德来源的观点.

The issue some people have with various forms of social-contract theory is that it often doesn't provide an absolute moral standard. And even when there are absolute moral standards, it is typically only for certain things like murder or rape, while other actions are deemed to be moral or immoral on a case-by-case basis. Morality is determined based on what the group majority find to be acceptable behavior. Some point out though that, regardless of the majority opinion of what is acceptable, people often feel bad on an individual level when they do something negative to somebody else, and conversely they feel good when they do something good (but not necessary) for somebody else.

一些人对各种形式的社会契约理论的质疑是：它往往不能提供绝对的道德评判标准.
即使有绝对的道德评判标准，通常也只适用于某些特定的事情，比如：谋杀或强奸，
而其他行为到底是道德还是不道德？只能是具体问题具体分析了.
道德是由大多数人认为可以接受的行为决定的.

有些人指出，不管大多数人觉得什么是可以接受的，
当人们对别人做了一些负面的事情时，自己通常会感觉很糟糕，
反之，当为别人做了好事(但不是必须的)时，自己就会感觉很好.

Chris Skuller
No.
Despite what many theists claim, God has nothing to do with morality in the first place. After all, if a person is only behaving properly either out of fear of retribution (hell) or desire for some eternal reward (heaven), they aren't behaving morally at all, they're just on their best behavior because Big Brother is watching. They're ultimately no better than a child who behaves only because Santa doesn't bring gifts to naughty children. They may be acting "good", but they aren't acting moral.So if God doesn't exist, why behave moral? Aside from not ending up in jail, it's in a person's, and therefore society's best interest.
Humans are a social species. We need each other for survival and are at our best when working together. Nothing in our civilization has been built by one person working alone. Nothing is created in a vacuum. Even a genius like Albert Einstein is standing on the back of the giants who came before him.Common morals, which ideally serve as the basis for laws, are needed to lubricate the social constructs that build civilization and makes everything possible. A society that behaves morally keeps chaos at bay and lays the groundwork for industry, science, and progress.If everyone just does whatever they want, society falls apart and we all lose.

回答九：
NO
不管许多有神论者怎么说，上帝首先与道德无关
毕竟，如果一个人只是出于对惩罚(地狱)的恐惧或对永恒回报(天堂)的渴望而表现得体，
他们根本就没有道德行为，他们只是在做“最功利”的行为
因为他的行为是做给“老大哥”看的.

他们并不比那些求取圣诞老人礼物的孩子好到哪里去
圣诞老人不给调皮的孩子发礼物.
他们可能表现得很“好”，但他们的行为并不合乎“道德”.

所以如果上帝不存在，为什么要表现得有道德呢?
这是因为：除了不会被关进监狱外，这也是一个人的利益所在，也是社会的最大利益所在.
人类是一种群居物种，为了生存，我们彼此互相需要，
在一起合作的时候，我们人类才能尽其所能.

在我们的文明中，没有任何东西是一个人独自创造的.
没有什么是在真空中创造出来的
即使是爱因斯坦这样的天才也是站在前人的巨肩之上

作为法律基础的共同道德，在构建文明和使一切成为可能的社会结构中起着润滑作用
一个有道德的社会可以避免混乱，为工业、科学和进步打下基础.
如果每个人都想做什么就做什么，社会就会分崩离析，我们全部完蛋.

Vihung Marathe
Yes. On the face of it, in the absence of a God from which to source our morals, everything is permitted.However, we are constrained by a number of things. Most importantly, we are constrained by the society around us.

回答十：
是的，从表面上看，如果没有上帝——我们的道德之源，一切都是允许的.
但是，我们的行为是受到许多事物的约束的
最重要的约束是我们周围社会的约束.

Humans are social creatures. Like all social creatures, we want to like, and be liked by, our fellow human beings. We have culture, and cultural norms. Peer pressure, and filial piety (or whatever you would call the instinct to do the right thing for our family) are powerful drivers.Unlike other social creatures, however, we have language and logic, which we use to try to explain or rationalise this. We say morals come from religion. But if you actually stop and think about why you do what you do (or don’t do what you don’t do), you will realise that it is not because it is written in your religion, but because it is what you have been taught since a young age by the people around you. Our behaviour is shaped by society.



However devout you may consider yourself, however closely you think you follow your religious texts, however fundamentalist or radical you may be, your views on, say, slavery, kings and rulers, violence, justification for war, definitions of crime and appropriate punishment, tribalism and equality, child marriage, rape, and women’s role in life and society, are all different than is laid down in your religion. There are things that are entirely permissible in your religious texts today, which you would absolutely refuse to do because you believe them to be wrong, immoral even. Where do those ideas come from? Not from the religion. In fact, they go against your religion, and yet you believe yourself to be a moral person. That is because your morals are actually shaped by society.This continues to be the case even when you come to terms with the fact that there is no God. You still have morals, even if you would perhaps call them ethics now. And they come from society, not from god.

可以看一下你自己：
无论你是如何的虔诚，无论你是觉得自己是多么遵从教义，无论你多么的原教旨或激进
你（在现实中）所看到的：
奴隶制
国王和统治者
暴力
战争的理由
犯罪的定义和适当的惩罚

部落主义与平等
童婚
强奸
妇女在生活和社会中所扮演的角色,
都跟你信仰的宗教里所写的完全不同.

有些事情在你们现在信仰的宗教经文中是完全允许的.
（但是）你绝对会拒绝去做那些事，因为你们相信它们是错误的，甚至是不道德的
这些想法从何而来?
不是从宗教来的，事实上，它们已经违背了你的宗教信仰，

但是，你还是相信自己是一个有道德的人的.
那是因为你的道德实际上是由社会塑造的
就算你接受了不存在上帝这个事实，
你仍然是有道德的，即使你现在可能称它们为“伦理”.
（因为）道德是来自社会，而不是上帝

The good thing about societal norms is that they change. They are not written in stone. As society changes. As new ideas come about. As new evidence about the nature of the universe comes to light. Our idea of right and wrong changes. And those ideas seem to be moving (over the last few thousand years) away from entrenched belief of the superiority of one sex, or one race, or one tribe, or one lineage of noble blood, away from exclusivity, towards equality and inclusivity. Away from war and violence, and towards peace. Away from savage retribution and towards rehabilitation.The other good thing about societal norms is that they do not change. At least, not too rapidly. Change, the coming of new ideas, new ideas that test the limits of ethics or would be considered downright unethical, usually happen at the edges. At the fringes of society. Not all of these changes in ideas get taken up by society as a whole. The mesh, the network of societal ties, provides a system of checks and balances. Those new ideas that are harmful to society get tried and tested and dismissed. Those that propel society forward get taken up and become the new norms.

社会规范的好处是它们会改变
它们不是刻在石头上的
随着社会的变化
随着新想法的产生
随着有关宇宙本质的新证据浮出水面
我们对错的观念改变了

而这些观念(在过去的几千年里)似乎正在摆脱一种根深蒂固的信念：即性别、种族、部落或贵族血统的优越感
摆脱排他性，走向平等和包容
摆脱战争和暴力，走向和平
摆脱野蛮的报复，走向康复

社会规范的另一个好处是它们不会改变.
至少，不会变得太快.
变革，新观念的出现，这些新观念通常发生在边缘——社会边缘.
它们会考验社会道德的底线，（有时会）被认为是完全不道德的.

并不是所有观念的变化都会被整个社会所接受
网络，社会关系的网络，提供了一个制衡的系统
那些对社会有害的新思想经过测试后被抛弃
那些推动社会前进的新观念会被接纳，然后成为新的社会规范