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?
Of course that's not the self-understanding of any of the major religions; each claims a body of divine revelation that originates from outside the natural realm, from God choosing to reveal Himself to us through some form of miraculous intervention in history. To say that all this is merely the result of "intuitive searching" is to dismiss orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as fundamentally false.
If that's your opinion, fine, just don't expect the followers of any of these religions to accept your statement unchallenged.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Severely Ltd.
I don't see how describing the nature of Quantum mechanics gets you any closer to reconciling free-will and Determinism. They are, by definition, opposites. The only way to do it, as I mentioned, is to alter the definitions.
As I mentioned above, I agree that we are using different definitions, but this is not because I have altered the definitions. Both our points of view have centuries long pedigrees. For my part, I think the Compatiblist definitions are the common-sense everyday definitions of the relevant terms (choice, causation, freedom, determine, etc.). It has always seemed strange to me the way Incompatiblists claim they are right by definition. The way you chose to use words doesn't alter the underlying facts of reality, therefore whatever way you want to define terms like 'Free Will' can have no bearing on whether belief in objective morality depends on belief in God.
Dec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Aaron Miller:
Atheism doesn't make one a monster, but it opens doors to the worst evils. Without God, murder would be child play. · 4 minutes ago
Ok, at this point, as an atheist, I need to insert an atheist point of view.
With all due respect to those of you who are believers,
My moral code is one that I chose freely. It was a decision I alone made. It was not imposed on my by an invisible magic man in the sky.
Do you really need an invisible magic man in the sky to tell you not to murder other people? · 3 hours ago
Can you tell me why Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy were wrong to indulge their sexual sadomasochism and lust for murder? Given that they and their victims are now all in the same state of nothingness, what difference would it have made to them if they'd decided not to torture, rape and kill?
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Severely Ltd.
I apologize, my wording was a bit of a cheap shot. However, I don't think that if your basis of acting morally isself-interest,that it is much more noble or accurate than easy. If an immoral act were in your long term self-interest, would that justify it? Self-interest doesn't hold up as a 'source', in the sense that Raycon used.
Apology accepted! My point is that nobility of purpose (aka religion) must share the stage with socio-economic demographics. Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!- content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good.
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Did Kant include an afterlife in this analysis? If not, it seems absurd to claim that moral behavior will always result in Happiness in this life. In this fallen world bad things happen to good people, might makes right, and history is written by the winners.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
One final thought before wrenching myself away from Byron's terribly provocative and interesting post : Where the heck is Michael Labeit ? :)
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 4 minutes ago
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa? Your fellow countrymen might be better off if you abdicated, but what's in it for you personally?
Or what if you are an ordinary citizen of a corrupt regime? What if you are a human rights activist in China or Iran? Your actions to bring about political change will benefit your countrymen and future generations, but you personally might spend your life behind bars, you may be starved, tortured, and shot for being good.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
I think it's possible for a system of morality that is reasonably objective to exist in the absence of what we typically think of as religion.
I'm not sure I'd call Confucianism or Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" religious (though Stoics believed in a Divine Giver, or logos), but both embrace a reasonably objective morality -- though freedom-loving people like ourselves would likely find the morality of Confucianism stifling and that of Stoicism a bit bleak. And I know irreligious people who are nonetheless capable of reasonably impartial moral reasoning.
I'm not sure God is necessary for systematic morality. Any acknowledgment of an ultimate reality beyond ourselves might do. Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" mentions the Creator, but not, I think, as much more than a reference to a universal truth outside ourselves. A personal God is not necessary to Smith's theory.
But my experience is that belief in a personal God lodges like a fishhook in the deepest recesses of the heart, tugging at its moral passions, always drawing them a bit beyond where they would be without such a belief. The heart pants for this God, and burns more brilliantly for Him.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Tom Lindholtz:
I shoulddo that which springs from within me. I mustdo that which springs from a source external to, and above me. I believe the CoC analogy fits. An objective morality from God has consequences imposed by God in a time and place of His choosing. Your final sentence reflects only temporal consequences, not divine consequences, which are outside our observation, but which I believe have been revealed to us by our Creator. I may curse Obama in this forum and, in the short run, find some agreeing, some objecting on grounds of taste. But those evaluations are not ultimately relevant. What is relevant is the ultimate judgement of the CoC monitors. If the key person is on vacation, and I escape judgement for a week, it does not mean that I will not face consequences · 1 hour ago
So "must" just means, "If you fail to comply you might pay for it later." That doesn't seem to carry any moral weight, just practical.
Dec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Joseph Stanko
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good.
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa? Your fellow countrymen might be better off if you abdicated, but what's in it for you personally?
Or what if you are an ordinary citizen of a corrupt regime? What if you are a human rights activist in China or Iran? Your actions to bring about political change will benefit your countrymen and future generations, but you personally might spend your life behind bars, you may be starved, tortured, and shot for being good.
And let's postulate a future Earth in which all hatred, disease and famine have been eradicated, one in which humans live without want for a natural lifespan without fear of premature death and all pursue self-actualization as they see fit.
When the Sun explodes, what difference will it all have made? Who will mourn us or even know we ever existed?
Mar '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Without a God, there is no right and wrong, no natural law, only the law of the jungle. The strongest make the laws. Without God, man is nothing more than an animal that can calculate, and morality is whatever he with the most armored divisions says it is. If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin are as justified in their ethics as anyone else, because murder is no longer a sin, because there is no sin. Right and wrong is simply what we say it is, or as I said earlier, what those that rule say it is. And what should they have to fear? If there is no God, then upon death, there is only nothingness. The SS camp guard meets the same fate as the nun that devoted her life to serving the poor. If there is no God, then the winners are the strong and will rule, and they are "right", and the losers are the weak and will serve and they are "wrong".
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Joseph Stanko
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 4 minutes ago
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa?
That ultimately doesn't pay. No real job security.
See: Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider religious-based moral reasoning to be more than "merely" reasonably objective, either. Humans, even religious humans, are subjective creatures, even as we strive for what is beyond ourselves.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 6:36amDec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
Joseph Stanko
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 4 minutes ago
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa?
That ultimately doesn't pay. No real job security.
See: Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. · 3 minutes ago
Idi Amin died in a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
No one can totally live up to their morality, however it's determined (thank you CS Lewis). This brings up justice, forgiveness and redemption that are always intertwined with morality. In the world, it always comes down to, 'I'm better than' which is satisfactory to no one (injustice).
Secular atheism is a slippery slope at best and at worst is everyone else too...Realizing the evil inherent in you, being truly sorrowful, and not being able to do one thing about it. It is hopeless. The Bible says The Ten Commandments were to show none of us can actually obey them. The definitive question is why we can't be good (individually or collectively), even if we will it.
An aside: I have found trying to explain just regular, pedestrian 'lying' to be more instructive than the murder scenario. You don't have to teach kids to lie. Notice it's not directly a Commandment, but Satan is the father of all lies...I have also seen no satisfactory philosophical answer (self interest is not an answer, but a description).
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
tabula rasa:
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.
I wish someone could find this essay, as I'd like to read it.
I tried searching for it, and got no joy. However, I did find this exchange about the existence of God between Heather Mac Donald and Michael Novak. And here are her posts at Secular Right.
If you browse her City Journal archive here, you'll see she has firm ideas of right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, wherever she got them from. (For example, she writes quite perceptively on the fallout of the sexual revolution and the rise of illegitimacy.)
Mar '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Joseph Stanko
Fred Cole
With all due respect to those of you who are believers,
My moral code is one that I chose freely. It was a decision I alone made. It was not imposed on my by an invisible magic man in the sky.
Do you really need an invisible magic man in the sky to tell you not to murder other people? · 2 hours ago
Putting aside any moral or religious commentary and just looking at your statement, you make the assumption that you sprang up as if you lived within some virtual bottle that did not allow influences in from the outside world.
While we do make choices, it is at the limits of our perception, the limits of our introspective ability to see the mirror image of who we are.
No one comes to the conclusions of anything, moral or otherwise without being a social singularity impacted by everyone around them and reflecting back the nature of your change.
Expanding our perception requires by definition, that we open up to possibilities not yet understood or thought of.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Tom Lindholtz:
That is, indeed, the pragmatic reason we shouldfollow a moral code. But it does not, in philosophic terms, give a basis for why we mustfollow a moral code.
What is the religious (or in this case, Christian) basis for why we "must" follow a moral code?
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 7:09amMar '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Joseph Stanko
Of course that's not the self-understanding of any of the major religions; each claims a body of divine revelation that originates from outside the natural realm, from God choosing to reveal Himself to us through some form of miraculous intervention in history. To say that all this is merely the result of "intuitive searching" is to dismiss orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as fundamentally false.
If that's your opinion, fine, just don't expect the followers of any of these religions to accept your statement unchallenged. · 1 hour ago
Kind of why we are here, looking for the challenge. You can't grow or expand in a box, Schrodinger's cat not withstanding..
Feb '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
This is in response to the OP.
From what I gather from your post you acknowledge objective morality based on some norms. This is a kind of natural law approach. You extrapolate a universal norm based on several particulars.
Another way to put this is that you see the effects of what we call the natural law found in a natural aversion to certain acts ("written on the heart"). Similar to witnessing bodies having a tendency to fall speaks to an overall force, which we call gravity, you see effects of a certain kind and know there must be some governing cause which explains the effects.
But this isn't theoretical at all; its just deductive reasoning and empirical science. You see effects and you know that there must be a cause.
So I suppose there is your answer. If you can leave the question "From where does this objective morality come?" alone, knowing that it exists in the same sense that gravity exists, you can have your cake and eat it, but wonder why it is there.
When that doesn't work out: Summa Theologica Prima Pars Question 2 Article 3.