Some atheists argue it's possible for objective morals to exist without God.
Of course, I don't agree.
But, playing along, I have a question. If it's possible for objective moral virtues to exist without God, then it's possible for objective moral vices to exist without God, isn't it? If it's possible for courage, self-sacrifice, and love to exist without God, then isn't it also possible for cowardice, self-centeredness, and hatred to exist without God?
If so, then I have a follow-up question. Given this, who or what would necessitate or obligate our obedience or disobedience? That is, even if the virtue of justice or mercy exists without God, what would obligate someone to be just or merciful? On this view, merely because a virtue or vice exists does not mean we ought to obey or disobey it, does it? Not as far as I can see.
Thus, even if the atheist is correct that it's possible to have objective morals without God, there's still no obligation for a person to behave morally or not behave immorally -- at least not as far as I can tell. But it's possible I'm mistaken.
Well, if objective morals were somehow grounded in a utilitarian calculus which just happened to be always applicable (e.g., it is always less beneficial for the person involved to kill someone), then the greater happiness that would result in virtue could provide the motivation to be moral.
ReplyDeleteIf atheistic ethics were somehow grounded in Kantian conception of ethics, I think your point would stand. And if they want to go the utilitarian route (which they probably will), they would have to actually give a reason to think that such calculus would give categorical imperatives. I highly doubt such a thing is possible (since secular political ethicists acknowledge the free-ride problem and respond that the only solution to such things is force; this concedes there is no intrinsic reason for the free-rider to behave morally).
patick what is you email
ReplyDeleteI think we need distinguish between obligation and motivation, and between deontological ethics (e.g., Kant's categorical imperative) and teleological ethics (of which virtue ethics is one species).
ReplyDeleteIf there could be objective moral duties without God then necessarily we would be obligated to observe those duties. After all, that's precisely what a duty is: a moral obligation.
However, it doesn't follow that we would have sufficient motivation to observe those duties. This is precisely why Kant argued that we have to posit God and immortality as postulates of practical reason. Unless there's a day of reckoning, a final accounting, why should we bother about observing our duties?
Morality exists, every society has its "mores." But it gets tricky when speaking about "absolute morality," or "absolute ethics," especially when a society demands the worship of a particular divinity and maintaining the honor of that divinity's words and riturals as an "absolutely ethical" imperative.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of influencing behavior, a belief in "hell" may discourage some people from acting in anti-social pain-inducing ways toward others--when the rest of that society already believes in a particular divinity and particular religious rituals. But when societies differ as to the divinity, what it requires by way of ritual, or how to interpret a particular holy book, then a belief in "hell" is used by one group against another.
In the end, no matter which system of ethics one employs, and no matter how much you declare it to be "absolute," it still appears there will be lawbreakers, and even absolutist systems at war with one another. So I'd say the best plan to go with is to promote freedom of belief when it comes to metaphysical or religious systems.
But concerning ethical systems we should seek to promote common denominators, like the fact that people don't like being emotionally or physically abused (unless they agree to it in advance, i.e., if they are masochists), nor do they like having things taken from them at another's whim, people don't like having their lives taken from them either at another's whim. Or as many great teachers of practical ethics taught,
DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE UNTO YOURSELF.
That's pretty basic and found among most of the world's religious and ethical teachers.
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete“But concerning ethical systems we should seek to promote common denominators.”
What’s the common denominator between a Quaker (e.g. George Fox) and an Aztec warrior? What’s the common denominator between the Iroquois and the Amish?
“DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE UNTO YOURSELF.That's pretty basic and found among most of the world's religious and ethical teachers.”
Weren’t the Samurai Buddhist? Did they subscribe to the Golden Rule? What about the Assyrians? Did they subscribe to the Golden Rule?
You also beg the question of why we should follow the Golden Rule. If a drug lord followed the Golden Rule, that would seriously lower his standard of living.
There's the matter of practical observation. It is said among some Christians, "Pray like everything depends on God and work like everything depends on you."
ReplyDeleteTheologically, God is the arbiter of all things right and true, where we derive Christian morality. To some degree, we reap the consequences of our actions in this world. However, we often do not observe immediate justice for evil.
Furthermore, in a world where even Christians do not fully agree on Christian morality it is unreasonable to expect a human population to establish and always be obedient to a unified rule of law despite our best efforts to do so. It doesn't mean that humans shouldn't try, for even the effort is fruitful for maintaining some semblance of civility. However, it is likewise unreasonable to expect the laws of man to comport with Christian morals.
Therefore, we as Christians ought to hold a higher standard of conduct with the understanding that human institutions of law will waver dramatically. For example, it can be argued that murder is always wrong because we don't don't want to be killed. Therefore we shouldn't kill others. Yet some of the same individuals who would argue this way would also support a law to euthanize the old or weak, and such is not outside the realm of possibility.
But even within our churches our application of God's moral law in our considerations of church policy, polity and discipline varies from church to church. To a great degree we are responsible for exacting accountability in this world for our moral breaches. Substantially, the church is to be set apart in our recognition of the foundation of our morality which is our Creator embodied in the person of Christ Jesus and established in us by his Holy Spirit.
So, while we bear some likeness to the secular world in the conduct and organization of our associations with each other, the difference is in our Foundation. We have one. And ultimately, they don't.
Edward T. Babinski said:
ReplyDeleteMorality exists, every society has its "mores." But it gets tricky when speaking about "absolute morality," or "absolute ethics,"...I think you've got it right here, Edward. This whole discussion is often confused by an equivocation between "mores", or ethical beliefs people follow, whether reasonably or not, and "absolute morality", or those ethical beliefs that are, or are believed to be the true ones, regardless of who believes them. Everyone has ethical beliefs, as I see you do...
Edward said:
So I'd say the best plan to go with is to promote freedom of belief when it comes to metaphysical or religious systems.Why is this the best plan? This is a very different question than "What is the best plan?". For the Christian, the best plan is whatever conforms to the commands of God, and the reason why they are best is because God is the source of goodness and wisdom and has the right as Creator to impose those commands.
I think that the main difference between theistic and atheistic ethical systems is not necessarily their content, but their justification. All systems' ethical prescriptions can be phrased in "ought...if" language. You ought to save many lives if you believe that saving more lives is the better path. (Utilitarianism) You ought to care for orphans and widows if you want to live according to God's wishes. (Theistic ethic). However, only theistic ethics can phrase ethical commands in simpler "ought" language. You ought not murder. You ought not engage in gossip. You ought to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and might. You ought to make disciples of all nations.
Only theistic ethics can consistently say that such simple commands, whether spiritual or not, are simply true. Atheistic ethics (of any form) only offer suggestions, but whatever ethical system they resemble (utilitarian, Aristotelean, Kantian, etc.), cannot claim to be simply true. No justification can be found as to why one is better than the others, and no justification can be given as to why one "ought" to follow an atheist's moral suggestions, in a simple sense. Only appeals to emotion or self-interest or some other previously held value can be made. To put it another way, there is no right or wrong, only beneficial or non-beneficial.
I think you're right, Edward, that people generally try to follow the Golden Rule and it's corollary, which you formulated so well. I think that they do so for myriad reasons, but I think only theists can say that it's a moral obligation to follow it and immoral not to. I don't deny that atheists say this, but they do so without justification.
Hi Drew,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind personal response.
In reply, I understand your concern for "justifications" for ethical stances, though I think basic observations and experiences should be considered prior to metaphysical justifications.
There appear to be recognitions so basic that I suspect they preceded the creation of laws and commandments, including biblical ones. Does the authority for such recognitions lay in any one holy book, or in ourselves? It would appear that any society of large brained creatures with heft memories and the ability to imagine consequences of actions and how others may react to them (viz., mirror neurons), as well as the capacity to relate emotions to thoughts and distinquish between strong emotional responses and thoughts, will reach a place of ethical concern and start composing statements of practical ethical wisdom.
Does this happen because of divine intervention, or does it happen on its own as individuals in a society learn what "works" in order to maintain both individual peace of mind and so that their society as a whole does not always splinter apart? Most people do not like being hurt psychologically nor physically by others (masocists excluded of course). Most people do not like having items they have worked for taken from them, nor have their lives taken from them at another's whim. Most people enjoy sharing things together, from ideas to meals to music, jokes, and movies. Societies as whole function on that same basis.
Lastly, I would question whether the basis of ethical authority per the Bible is as meaningful as the above description. Saying that "God made it that way," seems to explain less, and having to also explain away past perfect rules of God for society as "prior dispensations" seems to simply raise further questions.