A Secular Basis for Morality?
I've discussed at length my religious views in the past on Ricochet. To sum it up, I'm a secular agnostic and conservative. I have no hostility towards religion, though cannot bring myself to believe in any particular religion or deity.
On one theoretical issue though, I am torn: Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
In my own life, I operate under the assumption that there is objective morality. Rape, murder, abuse, are absolutely wrong and must be severely punished. But on a philosophical level, what is the objective basis for believing these things are wrong? I concede that I am incapable of producing one. However, as a secularist, I must act as though there is. Does that make sense?
In other words, good religion has a utilitarian and perhaps even evolutionary purpose. Society can exist fine with non-religious individuals, but a non-religious society with no objective basis for morality is doomed to all sorts of evils.
- Comment (268)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (17)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Much of my conservatism is based on the "objective morality" I derive from religious belief. That said, I certainly believe agnostics can subscribe to a set of moral standards that are not directly based on religion.
I wish I could point you to it, but Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute has written on this subject--she is an atheist, but argues persuasively that this does not mean she cannot subscribe to an objectively true moral code. She is certainly a conservative. It's been a long time since I read her essay, but I found it persuasive.
Jul '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Thanks. Interesting. I have some recollection of that name, so I'll have to investigate.
Mar '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron Horatio:
In other words,goodreligion has a utilitarian and perhaps even evolutionary purpose. Society can exist fine with non-religious individuals, but a non-religious society with no objective basis for morality is doomed to all sorts of evils.
I'm not convinced this is always true. There are many European countries which are functionally Godless yet have very low rates of violent crime, and most citizens respect a set of common morals when interacting with each other.
Perhaps widespread morality is possible in a secular society in which there are few reasons for animosity between citizens (i.e., a rich, developed, culturally homogenous country), but when tensions start rising, religion is what keeps everyone's heads cool.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron Horatio:
On one theoretical issue though, I am torn:Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
YES, read Ayn Rand.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
What an interesting and pertinent question, Byron! My answer, based upon personal experience, would be a resounding yes.
I was brought up to be believe that there is Right and Wrong, Good and Evil and that these principles have great moral authority in and of themselves and do not necessarily depend upon the validation of religious faith.
Although no one can fail to credit Judeo/Christian values for producing such ideas as "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," there are rational reasons to live a life by the 10 commandments (with a particular emphasis upon nos. 5-10). Conduct yourself with honesty and integrity while maintaining a healthy respect for one's body, ambition and ability and you will enjoy a happy, productive life. Society will prosper and thrive.
In other words, one reaps what one sows.
Mar '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Natural law?
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Yes, natural law...William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience; Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane; J. G. Frazer's The Golden Bough; C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man. Happy reading, Byron (and Godspeed, if I may, in the search.
Jul '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Humans are capable of both good and evil. We know when we are violating another's rights and when it is being done to us. Holding good or evil in to the realm of God or Satan rather than free will seems as silly to me as abdicating ones decisions in life to the state. We have free will and thank goodness we do as life would be utterly pointless if we were all good robots or all evil ones.
Dec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Nicomachean Ethics might be a place to look.
Apr '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
You might want to also try "The Biological Basis of Morality" by the great biologist E O Wilson.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
I believe so.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron, your post is an inquiry into the Moral Argument for the Existence of God. You can find a list of 20 arguments here. In short, Peter Kreeft, the author at that site, argues that atheism necessarily requires random evolution as a mechanism in man's existence. He says (in part), "Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter—a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask: Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose."
The question is not whether we should follow a moral code. Apart from a higher authority -- God -- there is no reason why we must follow one. One can argue that a higher authority than the individual might be one's community, society, nation, or community of nations, but that just kicks the can one more step down the road.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." -- Abraham Lincoln
Aug '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Natural law, the Noahide Covenant, or the Second Table were terms used in very similar ways by early Christians and Jews. These were taken to be laws which, while given by God, could be known by reason. Thus, Aristotle, could know them without believing in God. He could arrive at them empirically by observing the norms which were required for a stable social existence.
This natural law doctrine, also made it philosophically possible to accept a pagan or totally secular government as a legitimate government. (e.g. The Roman imperium) They covered the ways in which men should walk with men, and not the way in which men walk with God.
However, this natural law doctrine did not hold that all men were created equal. That is Judeo-Christian not Greek in origin.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
If there is actually no Creator, that is, a Person who has absolute authority over His creation, then all morality is a construct which any of us can make. We base it on conscience, and it can be informed by our own minds.
On the other hand, if there IS actually a Creator God, our first decision is which one? The God of Judaism and Christianity is the One who claims to be the Creator and Absolute Truth. If this is true, and He reveals Himself in the Bible, then all morality which is true derives from Him.
In the Bible, Deuteronomy 30:19 it says; "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."
Morality can have many sources, but Truth has only one. In the end, the answer to your question resides in your decision. Because, if you choose wrong, than morality is an interesting, but unimportant issue.
Apr '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
My answer would be to acknowledge that objective morality does not exist ("morality" is whatever projects DNA into the next generation), but for self-preservation we must act as though it exists. In much the same way that I intellectually understand that my life has no ultimate purpose, but that doesn't mean I perceive my own life as meaningless (most of the time, anyway).
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron Horatio:
In other words,goodreligion has a utilitarian and perhaps even evolutionary purpose. Society can exist fine with non-religious individuals, but a non-religious society with no objective basis for morality is doomed to all sorts of evils.
Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
This is an interesting question. I think the heart of the problem is that mankind has a lot of trouble being secular and objective. There is a need to worship something. People without faith seem to worship nature or the "god" of evolution. This means there is some hidden force that progresses the "good species" forward and punishes/kills the "bad species". Why do we have this nature?
Some people feel that we are no different from the animals but higher on the evolutionary scale. It seems funny that this "objective" belief brings about "animal" morals. If we as humans have a higher level of consciousness(spiritual side), why fight against this? Objective and spiritual reasons are needed to be moral. Using only one are the other is missing something.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 1:41amDec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
With all due respect, history proves this assumption to be false. Without strong social codes, there is anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness. See: urban communities in which there are many churches yet little or no respect for property rights or even worse, for human life.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
wmartin: "My answer would be to acknowledge that objective morality does not exist ("morality" is whatever projects DNA into the next generation), but for self-preservation we must act as though it exists. In much the same way that I intellectually understand that my life has no ultimate purpose, but that doesn't mean I perceive my own life as meaningless (most of the time, anyway)."
That is, indeed, the pragmatic reason we should follow a moral code. But it does not, in philosophic terms, give a basis for why we must follow a moral code. It does make sense, generally. OTOH, if all the rest of you generally follow a moral code, it may actually be in my own best interest, pragmatically, not to follow it.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EJT:
What do churches have to do with God. They are buildings where people meet, and in some of them, the people meeting there actually believe in God. In many it is merely a town hall for respectable people on Sunday mornings.
Strong social codes are another word for morality. It still comes back to where the source is.
Is there, or is there not a Creator God to whom we are accountable?
You must decide, and you are free to be wrong... in this life.
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
It's a poor game that has no referee and writes its rules on the fly.