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:
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark, perhaps a more succinct way of putting my perspective is this:
Our relationship with reality is neither trivial (else how would we survive?) nor perfect.
Even though the objectivity of our morality is unprovable, by remembering to ask ourselves the unanswerable question, "Is my system of morality objective?" we keep our minds open to any hints that reality might have to throw at us.
When we forget to ask that question, we might miss those hints.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Ed G.
I'm no historian, but I don't think this is accurate. I think that Christianity did present a completely new way of thinking about humanity, existence, our relationship to each other, our role in this life, etc. · 1 hour ago
Christianity looks to me like it was the religion of slaves and the poor in the Roman Empire until it became the religion of those in power. Then its practitioners took to butchering those who disagreed with them.
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
You're abusing the term secular. Feel free to look it up in the dictionary. It's not interchangeable with atheist or agnostic, although this is the fashion of the day. Believers, agnostics and atheists in America are all part of a secular form of government...not a theocracy which would be the opposite of secularism.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midge, good advice. I should distinguish between "who cares" meaning it's irrelevant, and "who cares" meaning it's something that you won't be able to achieve it in practice.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
meta_joe
But morality's being knowna posterioriimplies that morality is empirically investigable, which I find dubious.
Here is one reason. If something is empirically investigable, then we can use empirical observations to adjudicate between competing hypotheses about that thing.
Just so. We can empirically investigate hypotheses about morality in similar ways to non-moral science.
One thing to note about science: the structure of science rests on bottom level observations. For example the observation that Mercury appeared at such and such location in the night sky on a particular date. If an obstinate skeptic were to deny these base observations then he could deny the theories that explain them. As a practical matter these root observations are seldom denied, especially if the experiment is repeatable, but in principle they could be.
In morality the base level observations are often denied and that's a real problem for meta-ethical realists such as myself, but I think the difference between moral science and the hard sciences is one of degree not of kind, and that sufficient investigation can still distinguish between moral hypotheses.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Mark, perhaps a more succinct way of putting my perspective is this:
Our relationship with reality is neither trivial (else how would we survive?) nor perfect.
Even though the objectivity of our morality is unprovable, by remembering to ask ourselves the unanswerable question, "Is my system of morality objective?" we keep our minds open to any hints that reality might have to throw at us.
When we forget to ask that question, we might miss those hints. · 1 hour ago
Midge, the objective nature of Morality is unprovable in the same way that the objective nature of anything is unprovable. Perhapse your whole life has been the fevered hallucination of a demented mind? The objective nature of the world is a precondition to having coherent thoughts about it, not something to be proven. Similarly the objective nature of morality is a precondition to moral reasoning. Even those who explicitly deny objective moral truths nevertheless implicitly acknowledge their existence as soon as they make any non-random choice. That choice had a reason other than a pure act of will. That reasoning depends logically on criteria other than the self. That's what objectivity is.
Feb '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Ed G.
I'm no historian, but I don't think this is accurate. I think that Christianity did present a completely new way of thinking about humanity, existence, our relationship to each other, our role in this life, etc. · 1 hour ago
Christianity looks to me like it was the religion of slaves and the poor in the Roman Empire until it became the religion of those in power. Then its practitioners took to butchering those who disagreed with them. · 1 hour ago
Someone made the point that you "know" murder is wrong because you benefit from a Judeo-Christian culture that has made it so. To counter, you made a claim that Christians were subject to "social norms formed and informed primarily by Roman pegan values". I disagree. Do you care to discuss further and explore the actual disagreement, or are you going to ignore the discussion in favor of incendiary subject changers like your post above?
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
meta_joe
But consider these moral hypotheses:
Hg: Everyone is morally required to treat others as they would like to be treated. ('g' = 'Golden Rule'.)
Hn: Weaker people are morally required to submit to stronger people. ('n' = 'Nietzsche'.)
Presumably Hg and Hn cannot both be true, but I'm not sure what sort of empirical observation could show that (say) Hg is the better hypothesis.
Live a life (or observe one) based on each hypothesis and subject each to your moral intuition. Better still: build a civilization based on each and submit that civilization to your moral intuition. (I think this may have been done, I won't mention where for fear of violating Godwin's Law)
I know the obvious objection here is that intuitions differ. But I think in these cases we can often distinguish better intuitions from worse ones using non-arbitrary criteria. Yes the whole structure ultimately rests on unprovable observations -- the same way science does. But the truth of a moral system is ultimately justified by the way the system as a whole coheres, has internal consistency, provides explanations, provides practical guidance, and has beauty -- just like science.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Live a life (or observe one) based on each hypothesis and subject each to your moral intuition. Better still: build a civilization based on each and submit that civilization to your moral intuition. (I think this may have been done, I won't mention where for fear of violating Godwin's Law)
I know the obvious objection here is that intuitions differ. But I think in these cases we can often distinguish better intuitions from worse ones using non-arbitrary criteria.
How do you separate moral intuitions from subjectivity? You hint that you have a way.
Feb '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
There is much to dislike in organized religion, and life itself rattles faith -- C.S. Lewis is a stunning case in point. It is not my intention to offend non-believers. However, the existing examples of a sustained non-believer society are not helpful to Byron's question. Further, let's not distract with the false claim that all non-believers must love communism. Happily, most non-believers embrace the notion of living good, moral lives. But the troubling point is that if the history of mankind was dominated by non-belief, what kind of moral norms would we have today? Former communist Whittaker Chambers quite convincingly writes in Witness: "Man without mysticism is a monster."
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Wilson
How do you separate moral intuitions from subjectivity? You hint that you have a way.
All observations contain a subjective aspect. Right now I'm observing that the wall is blue. My present experience of blueness is very much in my mind and therefore subjective, but that doesn't mean the wall isn't blue or that the fact that the wall is blue isn't objectively true. The wall is (objectively) blue, and I experience the wall (subjectively) as blue. There's no contradiction here.
Similarly, an observation that a given circumstance promotes or inhibits people from realizing their potential as human beings has a subjective aspect, but the observation is still of the type that can be true or false, objectively.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Groves
However, the existing examples of a sustained non-believer society are not helpful to Byron's question. [...] But the troubling point is that if the history of mankind was dominated by non-belief, what kind of moral norms would we have today? Former communist Whittaker Chambers quite convincingly writes in Witness: "Man without mysticism is a monster."
Wait. I'm confused. Is the question on the table from the original post whether some sort of divine revelation is needed as a source of Morality, or merely whether Morality itself implies some sort of transcendence or mysticism?
If the question is the former, then we need to account for why civilizations with different beliefs about what specific sources are divinely inspired can all be good. If the later then we must confront the fact that even atheists can recognize transcendence. Not all atheists (let alone secularists) are crude materialists.
Obviously a crude materialist who denies that patterns of matter and energy can ever produce beauty or goodness won't believe in objective Aesthetics or Morality, but that's just a truism. You can't believe in Aesthetics without beauty or Morality without goodness.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
In none of the posts do I see any mention of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. I'm not qualified to expound on her arguments, but my understanding of the essence of her argument is that the basis for an objective morality is man's life. Only man has a need for morality, as only man has the ability to choose his actions, and therefore needs a standard to choose between good - that which promotes life - and evil, that which does not.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Objective Morality can be based on sources other than Divine Revelation, and one can believe in objective Morality without believing in God, but one cannot believe in objective Morality without faith, specifically faith in objective Morality. Similarly one cannot believe in any empirical Truth without faith -- faith in the existence of Reality.
Sep '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Live a life (or observe one) based on each hypothesis and subject each to your moral intuition. Better still: build a civilization based on each and submit that civilization to your moral intuition. [...] [W]e can often distinguish better intuitions from worse ones using non-arbitrary criteria.
Mike, I'm enjoying our conversation! I (and, as you probably know, others) agree with you that extra-empirical criteria are required to evaluate empirical hypotheses--coherence, consistency, etc. are necessary for being good. But the difficulty the naturalist encounters, I believe, might be expressed by this question: What is really valuable? E.g., why think that how one's civilization turns out, rather than how one achieves personal happiness, "better" indicates how one ought live? I agree that the former does, but perhaps the agreement is only because, as per St. Paul, the Law of God is written on our hearts. One could believe that what is ultimately valuable is just one's own happiness, damn the civilization. Why should we believe our civilization's success is really more valuable? Whatever the answer is, it does not seem discernible empirically; hence, my claim: moral value is not a posteriori.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Mark Wilson
How do you separate moral intuitions from subjectivity? You hint that you have a way.
All observations contain a subjective aspect. Right now I'm observing that the wall is blue. ...
Similarly, an observation that a given circumstance promotes or inhibits people from realizing their potential as human beings has a subjective aspect, but the observation is still of the type that can be true or false, objectively.
Normally if you were trying to rigorously prove the wall is blue you'd get an instrument to measure the wavelength of light. In general, the scientific method is a process by which we attempt to remove as much subjectivity as possible. However, you're proposing our own brains' "moral intuition" as a measuring device and "promoting or inhibiting people from reaching their full potential" as a standard. There is almost nothing objective here at all. "Full potential" is multidimensional and completely open to interpretation; it's questionable whether that is even a proper standard. Due to the enormous complexity of the world, determining whether a particular action promotes or inhibits reaching that standard is nearly impossible in most cases, I'd wager.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 4:19amJun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
double post
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 4:52amJun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Brian Watt
Mark Groves
There is much to dislike in organized religion, and life itself rattles faith -- C.S. Lewis is a stunning case in point. It is not my intention to offend non-believers. However, the existing examples of a sustained non-believer society are not helpful to Byron's question. Further, let's not distract with the false claim that all non-believers must love communism. Happily, most non-believers embrace the notion of living good, moral lives. But the troubling point is that if the history of mankind was dominated by non-belief, what kind of moral norms would we have today? Former communist Whittaker Chambers quite convincingly writes inWitness: "Man without mysticism is a monster."
Two of the purported "non-believer societies" were and are comprised of a majority of believers. The number of Christians in Nazi Germany vastly outnumbered atheists or agnostics and a good deal of the population of North Korea essentially believe that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il, now both deceased were deities when they were alive and deities now who guide the fate of their country.
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
It's too simplistic to say that morality isn't possible without a belief in the divine, the supernatural or the mystical. Whittaker Chambers is only partly correct, because mysticism has clearly bred many monsters including Adolf Hitler who was as steeped in mysticism as they come. Many abhorrent practices, slavery, for example were supported by an interpretation of scripture. If one believes in the inerrancy of scripture, then new interpretations must be drawn to correct the errant interpreters. Should we follow the mandate of Leviticus and kill homosexuals? A belief that cannot stand up to critical examination and be tested is not much a belief. If one can't admit that the God of the Old Testament did some pretty horrendous things then just what kind of morality is being promoted? Personally, I prefer the secular construct of American government. It should allow for freedom of religious expression so long as that expression is not harmful to other people. At the same token I'm thankful that it doesn't force one particular brand of orthodox, mystical, supernatural religious belief as something that must be obeyed without question or challenge...or critical examination.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 6:03amAug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Midget Faded Rattlesnake:
Even though the objectivity of our morality is unprovable, by remembering to ask ourselves the unanswerable question, "Is my system of morality objective?" we keep our minds open to any hints that reality might have to throw at us.
When we forget to ask that question, we might miss those hints.
Midge, the objective nature of Morality is unprovable in the same way that the objective nature ofanythingis unprovable.
Mack, I didn't say "the objective nature of Morality", I said "the objectivity of our morality", meaning not some moral system "out there", independent of human opinion, but whatever morals each of us has got rattling around in our own heads and hearts.
I agree with you that the objective nature of the world is a precondition to having coherent thoughts about it. Therefore I agree that there is some objective Morality (with a capital M) "out there". But none of us can presume to know that Morality perfectly, much less prove that our personal morality is identical to that Morality.
Make sense now?