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?
Michael Labeit
Why should I accept this premise? Why should I love God and not spurn what he has allegedly given to me?
There are (at least) two types of explanations: descriptions and justifications.
Suppose a man from Mars saw two humans necking and he asked you, "Why is that man biting that woman's ear?" If you answered, "They're probably in love," or "They're attracted to each other," you've probably described what's going on, but you haven't justified it. (Why should love or attraction result in ear-biting, after all?)
So yes, the explanation I gave was merely a description, not a justification. As I said, I didn't expect you to accept it.
Going beyond description to justification would take a lot longer. And it may be that any justification eventually defers to some description. But an honest description is at least a good place to start.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 9:53pmApr '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Why does it matter where people get their moral from. What I am worried about is not an atheists or a theist who agree with me, that certain things are immoral and should not be done. I am worried about the person who disagrees with me about what is and is not moral regardless of their justification for their divergent morality.
We have gone throughout human history through many different moral constructions, and have seen the results of these different moralities in the impacts they directly played in human uplift and suffering. Slowly we have refined our cultural morality based on the results we obtained. To me it seems the origin of a particular moral construct (ie. do not kill) is irrelevant.
The ultimate validation of our morality is seen in the results of their implementation. We know both religious and non-religious philosophies have given us bad moral guidance in the past and we have rejected those specific instructions.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
I'm with Valiuth. I believe in God myself, but it seems to me the "advantage" of basing objective morality on a religious deity is entirely theoretical. Various people claim that without basing it on God, "anything goes" but with God, you "must" follow that morality.
But in practice people do whatever they want, and there's nothing about "objective" morality that stops them. Many religious believers are marvelous, ethical, selfless and moral people, and so are many nonbelievers. On the other hand, some nonbelievers scorn religious morality and believe they are justified in founding death cults, serial murder, or wiping out political dissidents. Some religious believers use "objective" morality as permission (or even obligation) to sack Constantinople, behead Christians, or crash airplanes into buildings.
The only consequence of the "objectivity" of God-based morality is the post-mortem destination of your soul. I don't see that is has any impact on our earthly existence.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 8:20pmDec '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Stuart Creque
Can you tell me whyTed 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 themif they'd decided not to torture, rape and kill? · 8 hours ago
I sure can tell you why. Because they violated the Non-Aggression Principle. They agressed against and violated the rights of others.
What are these rights of which you speak?
Has the gazelle the right not to be eaten by the cheetah? Or the cheetah the right not to have its cubs killed by lions?
What gave a college co-ed the right not to be used for Ted Bundy's pleasure? Or, if you prefer, what says Ted Bundy did not have the right to take his pleasure from a college co-ed? He certainly had the strength, cunning and will to do it: who can say that it was wrong, just because she didn't want to suffer and die that way?
And at present, when he and she are both dead, aren't they both equal?
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Valiuth:
The ultimate validation of our morality is seen in the results of their implementation.
That seems circular to me. How do we judge the results of implementation if we don't first agree on the criteria, the desired outcome?
Suppose for instance we use two yardsticks to measure a society: total GDP and income distribution. Society A implements one moral code that produces a higher GDP and higher income inequality, while Society B implements a different code that produces lower GDP but nearly uniform income equality.
You and I would probably point to Society A and say "see, that moral code works better." But plenty of other people in America would claim the high income inequality is proof that the moral code does not work since it has produced the highly immoral result of people living in poverty in a rich society.
Unless we first agree on the right metrics to measure, pointing to the results begs the question.
Feb '12
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
"Secular basis" is the root of the problem. The only "secular" community we can look to for guidance is the Soviet Union and the Republic of China -- neither are moral pillars. Those Westerners turned off by organized religion cannot stop being the subjects of social norms formed and informed primarily by Judeo-Christian values. It is frightening to think what social norms would be today, if the prevailing view had always been that there is no higher power and that belonging to something bigger than yourself is never embraced.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Yes Mark. We atheist libertarians are crypto-admirers of communism.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Those Christians turned off by Roman peganism cannot stop being the subjects of social norms formed and informed primarily by Roman pegan values. It is frightening to think what social norms would be today, if the ...
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Of course you're not, I agree that's absurd.
However, not all atheists are libertarians. Most of the atheists and agnostics I know are passionate believers in environmentalism, pacifism, the welfare state, and income redistribution.
They're perfectly good and nice people, honest, hard working, generous, and so forth. This discussion keeps veering off into "how do we know murder is wrong?" territory, and that's not very interesting to me as I don't know a single person who thinks murder is a-ok. I'm more interested in questions like: how do I persuade an atheist that people's lives are more important than spotted owls and delta smelt? How do I persuade them that income redistribution is immoral?
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
That was amazing.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Wilson:
The only consequence of the "objectivity" of God-based morality is the post-mortem destination of your soul. I don't see that is has any impact on our earthly existence.
Come on. A belief that behavior in this life affects the post-mortem destination of one's soul often does have an impact on earthly behavior.
It is merely not a necessary or predictable impact.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 10:00pmDec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Valiuth: Why does it matter where people get their moral from. What I am worried about is not an atheists or a theist who agree with me, that certain things are immoral and should not be done. I am worried about the person who disagrees with me about what is and is not moral regardless of their justification for their divergent morality.
We have gone throughout human history through many different moral constructions, and have seen the results of these different moralities in the impacts they directly played in human uplift and suffering. Slowly we have refined our cultural morality based on the results we obtained. To me it seems the origin of a particular moral construct (ie. do not kill) is irrelevant.
The ultimate validation of our morality is seen in the results of their implementation. We know both religious and non-religious philosophies have given us bad moral guidance in the past and we have rejected those specific instructions. · 4 hours ago
The why informs the what unfortunately.
But,
For all practical purposes what you say is true.
Feb '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Those Christians turned off by Roman peganism cannot stop being the subjects of social norms formed and informed primarily by Roman pegan values. It is frightening to think what social norms would be today, if the ... · 35 minutes ago
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.
Jul '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Wow, I'm overwhelmed by the response this got. This post has been sitting in Draft limbo forever and decided to post it. Thought it would be doomed to Member Feed purgatory for sure.
Valiuth's #122 said it better than I could. In interaction with others, I have little concern for where people get their values from so long as they act roughly in accordance with my social and moral norms. If worshipping some tortoise keeps you from being a barbarian, then by god, keep on worshiping it.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mark Wilson:
The only consequence of the "objectivity" of God-based morality is the post-mortem destination of your soul. I don't see that is has any impact on our earthly existence.
Come on. A belief that behavior in this life affects the post-mortem destination of one's soul oftendoeshave an impact on earthly behavior.
It is merely not a necessary or predictable impact. · 44 minutes ago
Edited 42 minutes ago
Whether a moral code has any impact on earthly behavior depends on whether one believes in it, not whether it is objective in the metaphysical sense. Its actual objectivity doesn't matter if one doesn't believe it.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 10:58pmJul '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
That said, I still don't believe that there can be found any empircal, objective morality in absence of some creator dictating it. I have never found arguments to the contrary worth much from fellow non-religionists.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Wilson
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mark Wilson:
The only consequence of the "objectivity" of God-based morality is the post-mortem destination of your soul. I don't see that is has any impact on our earthly existence.
Come on. A belief that behavior in this life affects the post-mortem destination of one's soul often does have an impact on earthly behavior.
It is merely not a necessary or predictable impact.
Whether a moral code has any impact depends on whether he believe in it, not whether it is "objective" in some metaphysical sense. Its actual objectivity doesn't matter one bit if he doesn't believe it.
Oh, I see.
Since you had put "objectivity" in quotes, I supposed you hadn't meant actual objectivity, but rather the believer's perception that God-based morality is objective.
Not putting quotes around "objectivity" would have made your meaning clearer.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Not putting quotes around "objectivity" would have made your meaning clearer. · 0 minutes ago
Good point. I normally don't use quotes that way. I'll fix it.
This is really my entire approach to the argument. Who cares if you can or cannot prove that your morality is objectively true? What is important is that you can convince people to follow it, whether out of religious devotion, fear of hellfire, empathy, or practicality.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 11:00pmSep '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Most commenters on this thread seem to advocate natural law, which I take to [imply that] the moral science isa posteriori, not a priori.
[...] The law of Gravity needn't (logically) be either divine or human, so why should the Moral Law? · 19 hours ago
I agree that if (as per many on here) moral laws are laws of nature, then morality can be known only a posteriori. But morality's being known a posteriori implies 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. E.g., we used empirical observations to see that Einstein's relativity theory is more likely true than is Newton's theory of gravity. 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.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Wilson
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Not putting quotes around "objectivity" would have made your meaning clearer.
Good point. I normally don't use quotes that way. I'll fix it.
Glad to be of service.
Mark Wilson
Who caresif you can or cannot prove that your morality is objectively true? What is important is that you can convince people tofollowit...
Can any of us on earth prove that a given system of morality is objectively true? No.
But I'm not sure that knowing that we cannot prove the objectivity of our morality means we shouldn't care about whether our morality is objectively true. I think it matters very much to care about the objective truth of our moral systems, even though we can only guess at it.
For if you don't care at all, it might be awfully tempting to believe whatever's most convenient for you, even stuff that, if you imagined your morality from outside yourself, would seem pretty bad.
But if you do care, you at least make the effort, however feeble, to imagine your morality from outside yourself. I think that effort is necessary to all morality.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 4:03pm