Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can the Secular Define Evil?
I’m a fan of Dennis Prager, though I split my listening between him and Rush, as they’re both on at the same time. Dennis is an unabashed advocate for religion, and the notion that goodness flows from it. He frequently challenges secular people or atheists — like me — to contradict his claim that “[w]thout God there is no good and evil.”
It’s a good challenge, and I’ve been contemplating it for a long time. Not only do I think we should always confront our opponent’s best arguments directly but I really do think its important to ask myself — as secular person — how I draw the distinction between what is good and evil if I am not going to trust religion to define it for me?
First, how does religion define good and evil? Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland defined evil thus:
Evil is a lack of goodness. It is goodness spoiled. You can have good without evil, but you cannot have evil without good.
I think this is gibberish. First, it assumes that these are measurable quantities in any meaningful sense. Second, there’s a pseudoscientific feeling to it as well which mimics the notion that cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. I don’t think this is a very good definition of evil at all. Evil is supposed to be the antithesis of good, not its absence; further, it implies that the mere act of not doing good is itself evil. It seems to negate the possibility of benign neglect.
From my outsider’s perspective, the Judeo-Christian tradition defines evil:
- As either against other people or against God;
- As acting in a fashion which is morally reprehensible, sinful or wicked;
- As violations of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments; and
- As violations of the Golden Rule.
Being as I am secular, I’m going to write off the evils against God right off the bat. Each person who isn’t a a Jew or a Christian in the world commits these “evils” either passively or actively on a daily basis. I don’t think I or anybody else is committing a sin or acting evilly when we don’t observe the proper obeisances to God. Why? Because none of us is harming anybody by not doing so.
So, what about the rest of those commandments? I can’t imagine another morally normal person who would assert that murder, theft, rape, perjury or adultery are acceptable or not evil. The secular generally agree on these. So where do I draw the distinction?
The things that all of us — secular and religious — seem to agree on as being evil is when someone acts maliciously in one’s own self interest without regard to the harm that those actions cause others. Compare this to enlightened self interest or the Harm Principle. Violating these is an outrage to the conscience of morally normal people. The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is generally a good thing; violating it may not be explicitly evil, but to do so wantonly most likely is.
So let’s talk about some examples and see which of these responses are either good or evil:
- You come across a person on the side of the road who is unconscious and bleeding. Do you a) keep on walking, b) render aid and call 911 or c) rape, rob and kill them because they don’t know any different?
- You pull up to a red light. Standing in the intersection is a bum who is disheveled and inebriated. The bum has a sign with something cute like “Not going to lie, I just need a beer.” You have $20 in your pocket which you do not need. Do you a) Give them the $20, or b) keep on driving.
- A person who is a perfect stranger to you approaches. The stranger asks for a gun with which they can kill themselves. You have a gun. Do you a) hand them the gun and plug your ears or b) insist that this person get assistance?
Why or why not you do any of the options is just as important.
There are right and wrong answers. I’ll reveal mine in the comments.
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
And of course I agree with this. The irreligious are just as capable of living good and moral lives as the religious, and the satisfaction that comes with doing the right thing is, in my view, both due to spiritual satisfaction and evolutionary selection.
We’re just talking pondering whether it’s possible to establish a secular universal theory of morality, not whether it’s possible for secular people to have a personal moral code and to live morally.
You are misapplying. If someone breaks into your house at night (so you cannot be certain the person is not a threat to life), you are authorized to use deadly force. Indeed, if there is a doubt as to whether they may constitute that kind of threat, we can kill them.
Let me restate again: I can kill a Bad Guy. I cannot kill an innocent person because otherwise the Bad Guy will kill me.
You are correct. I can kill a Bad Guy to save a life. I can risk my own life to save others.
I think it’s merely a difference in how we consider the chain of causation.
The religious assert that morality comes from religion, the clever non-religious should assert that religion comes from morality.
My argument isn’t about whether or not morality is real – it’s about whether one is a reflection of the other or vice versa. In this house of mirrors which is the backwards, virtual image and which is the genuine article?
Well, results do matter. Our society commands the heights of science, technology and culture. There is obviously something there. That something doesn’t have to mean that we’re favored by the Lord.
Once upon a time it was considered moral to burn witches. The question of whether or not burning witches is moral is actually moot: There never were any to begin with.
Then how about heretics or enemies of the state?
I could offer some sort of Star Trek-y, Kantian-Lite ® answer about the value of morally reasoning, sentient beings, but I’m not really sure that’s helpful or convincing.
On the other hand, I’m not sure invocations about the immaterial, immortal soul known and loved by God is much better as an answer.
I think the answer is that non-religious folks are dis-proportionally progressive and leftist.
I get this question sometimes, to which I say: Scoreboard.
People vote with their feet. One need only look at the direction that people are going to figure out where things suck and where they don’t. We don’t exactly suffer from the flight of the upper and middle classes to Burkina Faso, Vietnam or Nicaragua, do we?
And yes, I am an unabashed cultural imperialist and Western Chauvinist (sorry, WC!)
Interesting discussion.
My answer to that question is: I sure hope so, because our culture is only growing more secular.
Unfortunately, the leading secular ethicists like Peter Singer end up very far away from what most religious (or Judeo-Christian traditionalists) would view as moral.
Luckily, most secular people (in America) reject Peter Singer’s approach to ethics.
So if the day came when say for example China began achieving science, technological and cultural success equivalent to or exceeding the West should we then consider the PRC equally moral or perhaps morally superior?
Burn them too.
Ahem.
When you say “enemies of the state” do you mean turncoats during time of war like Benedict Arnold? Insurrectionists? What do you mean?
As to heretics, Islam recommends stoning, does it not? Death is the punishment for apostasy.
Needless to say, I don’t think that is moral.
I actually already made this point. But it doesn’t make non-religious people clever to make this claim. It makes them confused. If morality is objective and religions merely reflect objective morality, why do some cultures grasp objective morality more than others? Luck? What part of themselves are westerners tapping into that other societies haven’t?
Your evidence of moral superiority is that we have achieved certain material heights. But are knowledge and wealth the ultimate good? From a utilitarian viewpoint aren’t personal satisfaction and happiness more important? I mean isn’t that why people in the west strive to learn more, make more, and buy more? Isn’t it because we think it will makes us more happy?
So the question is, are we really more satisfied and happy as a society than other parts of the world? I’d like to see the evidence for that. If we’re not, or if happiness and satisfaction aren’t the most important measures of whether a moral system “works” what is?
I think our epitaph will read that we committed suicide, not that we were bested in a moral sense. That suicide coming by reason of allowing the infectious diseases of liberalism and progressivism to overwhelm our immune systems.
Why do most children have the same religion as their parents? The same Political Affiliation?
Sorry, that was a bit puckish of me. But since you provided a thoughtful answer, that gives me an opportunity to ask a followup. At least part of your support for treating the Golden Rule as a moral truth is based in the satisfaction it provides when it is followed. Is that different from the satisfaction that ethnic cleansers feel when they get rid of those dirty minorities?
If removing “undesirables” actually led to a more technologically advanced, aesthetically pleasing, healthier, and economically prosperous nation, would that be evidence of the moral good of the genetic cleansing program?
I think these rhetorical questions point to the fact that we might need something besides “results” or “scoreboard” to measure morality.
No, but those people who come here don’t really accept western morality, they only come for the money and typically cling to the morality of the places they came from. And typically those people succeed monetarily despite not buying into western beliefs.
Second and third generations may eventually assimilate just because the culture their parents or grandparents came from are overwhelmed, but that isn’t really a moral triumph of western beliefs, that’s just inertia.
Wouldn’t a superior utilitarian moral system be able to inoculate itself or at least out compete those alternate “infectious” beliefs?
That isn’t an answer. I don’t believe you are being socratic by continually dodging questions with other questions. You’re merely being evasive.
Define your terms. People often hate to get bogged down in semantic arguments, but talking past each other is inevitable if the terms are unclear.
Here’s my definition: Religion is a fundamental and comprehensive perception of reality. Morality is the second stage of that definition. We begin by identifying what we think the world is. Next, we identify what that reality demands of us. Those demands are what we call morals.
Thus, morals are always bound with religion because the only way to reasonably establish a code of behavior is to identify the context and goals of that behavior.
Before one can ask, “Sacrifice the dog to save the boy or sacrifice the boy to save the dog?”, one must ask, “What are the criteria of moral value?” Is a human life precious because our emotions tell us so? Or because it happens to be useful? Or because the Creator determines the purpose of His own works, which might or might not have anything to do with one’s usefulness or affectionate attachment to other human beings?
Morality and religion are not separate. Morality is a necessary aspect of religion.
Note that by my definition every person intelligent enough to consider a theory of being is religious, not only those who believe in deities or spirits. The only reason the word “religion” is associated with belief in supernatural elements is because most human beings throughout history have believed in such elements.
Oh, no. I wasn’t implying favoritism. At least, I didn’t mean to. I meant that the West has things properly ordered — or, at least did at one time. My argument is that Christianity, rooted deeply in Judaism, has ethics ordered to the good (which is one definition of God).
I’m hoping to be inspired to write something on the West’s philosophical fixation on “higher things.” High ideals brought us to this pinnacle. As we turn our focus to lower things (carbon footprints, e.g.), we descend. Individual secularists are not responsible, but secularism is, imo, the greatest threat to Western Civilization.
My favorite way of thinking about communism is to ask how many western sports teams landed in Communist bloc countries and demanded asylum. If I’m in a bad mood, I rephrase it as “And how many Floridians braved shark invested waters in inner tubes to try to get to Cuba?”
Certainly material wealth is A measure. The West has had vastly greater success in reducing poverty than has the rest of the world. But western culture is also vastly greater in art, music, literature. Indeed, the decline in high culture is a sign of cultural decay. Lack of artistic measure is a sign of a culture that has not progressed spiritually (not in the religious but rather the aesthetic sense). Technological progress is largely a phenomenon of the west. Other societies may improve on our technology, but the origins are almost exclusively a phenomenon of the west. It was western science that mapped the genome. Western science that has progressed in physics and biology. Western science that has advanced medicine. By virtually every objective measure western culture sets the standard. This isn’t chauvinism. It is fact.
I don’t dispute that we lead the world. I dispute that this proves we are more moral or have a better morality. I question why you attribute these material achievements to our morality and why material success, rather than other measures, like personal satisfaction or happiness or some other criteria, is the way to evaluate morality.
How can you know that following an objective morality will make you rich? What if being truly objective about the world and the universe in which we live actually induced despair, and in order to actually thrive we had to indulge a capacity for denial and self-deception?
What if success is actually a better measure of how well we can lie to ourselves about the nature of our existence?
The other important question is, what is this western morality that we credit with all the material success? I think you’d be hard pressed to nail down a defined morality that was universally acknowledged in the west. In fact, people of widely different moral viewpoints share basically equally in the material success of the west. Sussing out the fundamental characteristics of western belief that account for the lead we enjoy in the world today is very tricky business. I’d be interested to hear what those who hold up the west’s moral superiority to layout explicitly what that morality is.
Just a quibble. Historically, immigrants DID buy into American beliefs about the Land of Opportunity, and essentially the application of work ethic to bettering one’s state. Risk tolerance is a shared characteristic of immigrants, and that, too, has a moral component.
Cuba just did it wrong, Tom. American communism is going to be awesome.
I take it all back! ;)
You know the joke Reagan told Gorbachev at Reykjavik?
I agree with you, John. People here often praise Rome – Roman Law, Roman Engineering and Institutions, etc. Rome was successful. But it was also pagan and immoral by any of the metrics we have used here. Rome, whatever its accomplishments, was not good.
Was anyone during that period?
When it comes to measuring the value of societies, I have it easy: I just compare them to the values set out by the Torah. The more closely a society tracks to Torah, the more moral it is.
Therefore, a society that has different laws for different people/classes is not as good as one that has the same laws for everyone.
A society that discourages loving-kindness, or that does not have a legal system, or that sacrifices people to Gaia, or that treats people like animals…. is not morally good. I could go on, but you get my drift.
This kind of argument is considered cheating by non-believers. And that is OK. It just helps make my point that an unanchored morality, untethered to a touchstone, floats thither and yon.