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:
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
meta_joe:
According to Nietzsche, if God [...] is dead [...], then moral value can be established only by humans, in which case moral value will reflect human differences [...] Today, some philosophers try to avoid positing a sole divine authority by claiming that basic moral principles are just brute facts--denying them, like denying 2+2=4, leads to a contradiction.
Most commenters on this thread seem to advocate natural law, which I take to be the idea that moral truths are objective in the same sense that empirical truths are -- bot the way mathematical truths are. Morality is based on human nature, so to know moral truths one must learn about humans. In other words the moral science is a posteriori, not a priori.
If this is correct then morality can be known without belief in God without being a mere act of human will. Many commenters assert (along with Nietzsche) that morals have to be either divine or human in origin. Why so? The law of Gravity needn't (logically) be either divine or human, so why should the Moral Law?
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
It seems to me that atheists who argue for objective morality are borrowing on theists capital. Assuming the evolutionary development of common morality, there is no reason for anyone or any society to abide by it and thus, the only true morality can be be the will to power.Nietzsche and other atheist of his era were at least consistent in this. However, their children were Hitler, Stalin, etc. Modern atheists like Hitchens are inconsistent. Look for the online debate between Hitchens and Doug Wilson on the Christianity today website to see how it plays out.Of course, anyone can be moral. One need not be a theist. Christians, particularly evangelicals, oftentimes erroneously make that argument. God's common grace extends to us all and keeps us from creating hell on earth. (despite our all too frequent attempts to do so.)Interestingly, the apostle Paul wrote that if the Christian truth claims are not true, then Christians are to be pitied above all men because we do not simply "eat, drink and be merry."
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
There are two essential motivations for justice and kindness: love and fear. Fear is necessary because human beings are not perfect. Every person, no matter how noble, will fail to love at times. In those moments, fear is the safety net. It keeps us acting justly even when we do not want to do so or feel pressured to do otherwise. Of course, there are times when both love and fear fail.
A Christian always has reason to fear when love fails. An atheist fears only other people — a far milder threat.
There is another vital question: What is love?
The truth is that every one of us spends a lifetime learning how to love, whether we mean to or not. Different people often have vastly different beliefs of what actions exhibit love. Christianity describes not only a reason to fear and love but also numerous examples of how to love.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
raycon: EJT:
What do churches have to do with God.
Strong social codes are another word for morality. It still comes back to where the source is.
2 ) My "source" is very simply the peace and prosperity engendered by leading a life according to specific social mores. It's far easier to be an ethical person than a criminal! · 24 minutes ago
'Easy' just won't stand up as a reliable foundation for morality.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
This post says very many things very well without very many words.
Jun '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
To get back to the original post, there is no standard for morality in western civilization without God. If there is no God of the Bible, then what we view as moral is dead and gone.
The secular and atheists have benefited and continue to benefit from the solid foundation of the believers and that's fine. But if the God of the Bible is ignored, morality is in the eyes of each of us and we can rationalize all sorts of immoral behavior.
Dec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron,
I will attempt to explain Kant's MetaEthics as quickly as possible (if that's possible).
For Kant someone trying to do Morality directly is like someone trying to do Physics without first understanding Geometry. Without Geometry, a form of pure mathematics, attempting to do Newton's Mechanics would be absurd. Even Einstein needed to refer to Riemann's extra dimensional Geometry before he could produce General Relativity.
In the MetaEthics, Kant is breaking down concepts that are required preliminary to any Ethics. Freedom is the first problem. Choice requires Transcendental Freedom. As this is not compatible with immanental ideas of causation one is left with morality here and nature there and never the two will meet.
The solution to this paradox is that of postulating a Transcedental Gd which has created both Nature and Morality. This Gd has constructed Nature & Morality in such a way that moral behavior will result in Happiness even though Happiness is not the object of the moral law. (cont.)
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 3:14amDec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
(cont.from #47)
Having done this (as quickly as possible) one moves to the final problem that of Human Identity. Without a transcendental component to the Human Identity there would be no consistent Identity at all. Thus Kant postulates the Transcendental (immortal) Soul as the portion of the Human Identity that can be either Virtuous or Sinful.
This explained to a depth of about 10,000 times this is usually referred to as the full Deontological Ethical point of view. 125 years ago this would have been very popular at least on a college campus. Of course, this is no longer true.
The relentless attack of the Atheist Materialist but more importantly 20th century Agnostic Formalist philosophy wore down the MetaEthicists and most recently through banal left wing ideology have driven the deontological from all but a few well protected places. (cont.)
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 3:27amDec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
(cont. from #48)
What we should ask is whether Mr. Kant was making a good point in the first place. Can you do Phyics without first understanding Geometry? Is it still a completely absurd idea? What would be even more absurd would be a cult of Geometry haters who attempted to destroy anyone who would teach something as strange as a point being infinitely small or a straight line being the shortest (infinite precision)distance between two points. Never learning High School Geometry no one would ever learn even Newtonian Physics much less anything else.
That is exactly what modern philosophy is. The modern cult viciously attacks anyone who presents the ideas of the MetaEthics. These ideas like Geometry to Physics are preliminary to an understanding of Ethics. Thus anyone claiming to grasp Ethics without them is participating in an absurdity. Of course, this is very much what we see.
Oddly enough, as a side effect of his MetaEthical analysis Kant's postulate of a Transcendental Gd, creator of Nature and Morality, is also a basic argument for Western Religious Faith. (cont.)
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 3:17amDec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
(cont. from #49)
It seems a very long way to go for something one could have just had an epiphany about. However, some of us, the author especially, are very stubborn and require extreme logical analysis before recognizing what is obvious to others through mystical means.
If you are that stubborn then Kant is the Philosopher for you.
Regards,
Jim
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
James Gawron:
As this is not compatible with immanental ideas of causation one is left with morality here and nature there and never the two will meet.
What's an immanental idea?
Mar '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
I would answer, from a strictly intellectual/rational viewpoint, no. To posit a basis for human morality that exists "objectively" (i.e., completely outside and independent of the realm of human existence) would seem to be an absurd proposition, akin to asking if there is a morality code governing interstellar space or subatomic particles.
I would answer, from the viewpoint of direct experience (the heart, if you will) that all humans are born with a sense that life, and indeed the whole world, is absolutely sacred. To grow up in a particular culture (especially a modern mass culture) is to learn the conventions of how to limit that sense of sacredness in ways that permit you and your culture's relative success at survival, reproduction, and material prosperity. The increasing dominance of the intellectual/rational view in achieving that relative success is obvious. But the human heart and its wisdom remains accessible to all who are willing to directly touch it.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Tom Lindholtz:
Again, philosophically, you are only demonstrating why we shouldfollow a code, not why we mustfollow a code.
Tom, I find your distinction between "should" and "must" incomprehensible. "Must" either means "emphatically should" or "necessarily will", but you clearly don't mean it in the later sense. The whole point of morality is that we have a choice not to follow it. We can chose to violate the Ten Commandments, but not the Laws of Thermodynamics. So if you don't mean that we necessarily will follow a moral code, are you merely saying that we really, really should follow it? You seem so be relying on the distinction between "should" and "really, really should" to do a lot of work in your analysis.
Dec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
James Gawron:
As this is not compatible with immanental ideas of causation one is left with morality here and nature there and never the two will meet.
What's an immanental idea? · 1 minute ago
Immanental Causation is Nature. One event is caused by the next by the next by the next ad infinitum.
May '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Read "Starship Troopers" by Heinlein.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Um, there sort of is a code governing interstellar space and subatomic particles.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
This is a good question and I think J. Gawron's Kant post holds the answer. To have a morality with any meaning, you have to have freedom of choice. If everything is determined, nothing is wrong.
If there is nothing transcending the material world, that is, if ethics are on the same plane as the laws of physics, then there is no freedom of choice, which also requires a transcendent basis. Freedom of choice can't exist in a universe of only matter and energy.
Edit: I should've clarified that I intended The Transcendent = The Divine. Not any particular religious conception. I mean the big one, the Big Divine.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 3:53amSep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
James Gawron
Mack The Mike
James Gawron:
As this is not compatible with immanental ideas of causation one is left with morality here and nature there and never the two will meet.
What's an immanental idea? · 1 minute ago
Immanental Causation is Nature. One event is caused by the next by the next by the next ad infinitum. · 3 minutes ago
Thanks. That's my problem with Kant, then. I'm a Compatiblist on the question of Free Will.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
In response to the original post, I don't see how there can be a philosophical basis for objective morality if God does not exist. If there was no Creator, Designer, or even pantheistic personality such as Mother Nature to give the universe any kind of overarching purpose, design, direction, intent, or outcome, then nothing could have designed or directed the universe—any universe, its properties, its very existence—one way and not another. This means that the universe is driven, from beginning to end, by blind, random, mindless, purposeless chance. And how can metaphysics of this sort account for intrinsic value, the source of objective meaning and morality? I don't see how it can. If God exists, He is the ground of meaning and morality because He is Goodness itself—the ground and source of all goodness. All goodness, then, is a reflection of God. And under this view evil is a privation or subtraction of the good. I recommend The Last Superstition by Edward Feser (and those Peter Kreeft links recommended by Tom Lindholtz).
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
But Aristotle did believe in God, did he not? Not the God of the Bible, surely, not a personal god, but a divine being, the eternal prime mover and final good that played a key role in his metaphysics (see Book Lambda).