Jon Jones

PHL 100

Is God’s Existence Necessary for a Valid Idea of Good?

What is good? More importantly, where do our ideas about good originate? If our beliefs are wholly formed from genetics and experience, as science tells us, then it seems that any idea of good we have would have to given to us through our genetics or society. Both of these sources seem to have two possible origins for the idea of good: either God or Nature. And so, it seems, that the question really becomes “Are our ideas about good divinely inspired, or merely random, natural impulses extrapolated into complicated laws of human behavior?” If those are really the only two options, then the question is raised “If our beliefs are determined, and if God does not exist, is there any validity to our idea of good?” One view, of course, is that our idea of good is valid whether God exists or not. Appropriately, the other side argues that God is necessary for a valid idea of good. I will attempt to prove the first.

The view that God is necessary for a valid idea of good has some good arguments to support it. They generally start with the idea that, in order for a view of good to be valid, it must apply to all people. Whether or not people actually follow the rules of good is irrelevant. In fact, whether anyone follows the rules is irrelevant. The view is that there is an all encompassing standard of good that should be followed by all people. The way this standard is given to us would either have to be genetically or through society. If the standard was given through genetics, it seems to be that either blind chance would create the view, as part of evolution, or that God hands it down through the generations, and that it is a natural part of you. Similarly, with society the standard was either something learned genetically and became rules people followed, or laws given by God. And so either it is blind chance or God. However, some things given to us by genetics we generally do not regard as good. We have a natural tendency to do whatever is necessary to survive, which could easily involve disadvantaging another. It does not seem congruent for us to think that hurting someone for our own personal gain is good. Yet that is a natural tendency for us. And if some natural tendencies are not good, then how do we judge which of them are good? In other words, there would have to be some other standard to judge the standard. Which leads us to the only altervative, which is God. And not only does the idea of God provide something outside of us to provide the standard, which would seem to be more compatible with something all-encompassing, but also God would seem to have the power to enforce his rules. And so, it seems, it is necessary for God to exist in order for there to be a view of good that is valid for everyone.

The other view argues that, although a view of good should extend for all people, the view doesn’t have to come from God. But instead of good being an all encompassing rule system that all people should follow because God decreed it, it is heavily related to evolution. Humans are essentially social animals; we survive best when we work with other humans. And even if good is nothing more than what is best for our survival, what is best for our survival tends to be what is best for the community. And so, to do good is to do what is best for the community. Of course, what is best for the community is not always what is best for our own survival, but there is definitely a strong correlation, and nature seems to have merely taken the correlation a bit further and made good what is best for the community. Obviously, this view of good needs no God to make it work. What makes this idea most intriguing is the fact that our view of good does seem to fit this mold; what is best for the community does really seem to be a general rule for what is good. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean what is best for the government, or what the laws of that government say to do. It also doesn’t say that what is best for one community is what is best for another. In that way, there can be many differing subsets of rules for doing good which are all valid and compatible. This flexibility allows more than a select few to be good, and also allows for acceptance of other cultures, both of which are excellent benefits.

But which one is really correct? Are they both valid points? The answer is no; the argument that God must exist for there to be a valid view of good is flawed in a few ways. First of all, it isn’t very helpful to know that there is a standard of good that God created without knowing what that standard is. According to the theory, there is a firm standard of good that we should all live up to, but that few people do. In fact, if the actions of some people are supposed to be good, then that would automatically make the actions of others not good, because they are opposites. Worse, it can be applied to whole societies; if what one society thinks is good actually is good, then other societies are filled with people who are not doing good. An example is that some societies believe eating cows is evil, but Americans eat hamburgers every day. There are thousands of examples like this. And if the idea is extrapolated all the way to its end, you realize that no two people have the same idea about good. And if only one view is right, then everyone else in the world is wrong. Which means that, at most, only one person on the planet lives up to the standard of good. This seems a heavy price to pay for holding the view, especially if God really does have the power to enforce his rules. Also, it creates an elitist view of a particular person’s own culture (for, obviously, whoever is considering the situation will believe his own view is correct) and promote non-acceptance of other views. This close-mindedness seems a poor way to live, especially when other choices are available. Last but not least, it forces us to believe that what is good is only what God commands. Which begs the question: “what standard did God use to create the standard of good?”

So, really, there is a choice to be made. Is the world a place with a set standard that noone will attain, and that in order to have something be good it must be commanded by God? Do we want this arbitrary system which breeds incompatiblity and close-mindedness? Or is what we mean by good “what is best for the community”? This question becomes more important as our world increasingly a global community, where what is best for the community is what is best for the entire human race. If we accept that good is not dependent on a God, then we can accept that other cultures have valid ideas of what is good. And this is necessary to survive in our global community mixed with different cultures, different ideas, and different values of what is good.