Atheist: "The concept of objective morality pointing to a creator is nonsense. Objective morals were developed as a survival adaptation and have evolved over time. The fact that humans have developed morals, and that they have evolved over our recorded history (women’s rights, don’t hold slaves, interracial marriage) shows it’s a product of human social evolution and not a god or divine fiat."
Answer:
The issue of objective morality can be a nebulous topic. Understanding these major areas will help remove some of the fog from this topic:
The issue of objective morality can be a nebulous topic. Understanding these major areas will help remove some of the fog from this topic:
- Difference between SOCIAL NORMS and MORALITY
- MIND DEPENDENT vs. MIND INDEPENDENT
- CREATED vs DISCOVERED
- THE GROUNDING PROBLEM
SOCIAL NORMS AND MORALITY
Many atheists who try to explain objective morality blur the line between A) SOCIAL NORMS (e.g. manners, etiquette, customs, etc.) and B) MORALITY (e.g. evil, wickedness, malevolence). For the sake of clarity and simplicity let’s focus on the difference between what is considered socially unacceptable/rude and what is immoral/evil.
Examples of A): belching at the dinner table, putting elbows on the table, not removing shoes before entering a home, chewing with your mouth open, picking your nose, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group can change from culture to culture, and “evolve” over time; however, this means that this group is SUBJECTIVE/mind DEPENDENT.
Examples of B): Rape, torture, murder, child abuse, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group are evil regardless of whether or not a society recognizes it as evil. That is, the word “EVIL” is an accurate description of how the action relates to Ultimate Reality. This means that this group is OBJECTIVE/mind INDEPENDENT.
Examples of A): belching at the dinner table, putting elbows on the table, not removing shoes before entering a home, chewing with your mouth open, picking your nose, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group can change from culture to culture, and “evolve” over time; however, this means that this group is SUBJECTIVE/mind DEPENDENT.
Examples of B): Rape, torture, murder, child abuse, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group are evil regardless of whether or not a society recognizes it as evil. That is, the word “EVIL” is an accurate description of how the action relates to Ultimate Reality. This means that this group is OBJECTIVE/mind INDEPENDENT.
MIND DEPENDENT vs. MIND INDEPENDENT
The truth or reality of a statement that is mind dependent hinges on the way an individual thinks or feels about the statement in question. A statement regarding the tastiness of ice cream is a perfect example of a statement dependent upon the mind. A personal anecdote works well here; my favorite ice cream is Pistachio Almond but my wife can’t stand it. Consider the following statement: “Pistachio Almond ice cream is delicious!” Is this a true statement? The correct answer is: it DEPENDS. The truth of the statement “Pistachio Almond ice cream is delicious” is SUBJECT to the individual making the statement.
In contrast, the truth or reality of a statement that is mind independent is true regardless of how an individual thinks or feels about the statement. The mathematical statement [5 + 3 = 8] is a great example of a true statement independent of the mind. The fact that “8” is the answer (when you add 3 to 5) is true under any circumstance including whether or not I have any knowledge of the problem in question. That is, no matter how sincerely an individual believes the answer to be something other than “8” the truth of the statement [5+3=8] remains unchanged (i.e., OBJECTIVELY TRUE).
In contrast, the truth or reality of a statement that is mind independent is true regardless of how an individual thinks or feels about the statement. The mathematical statement [5 + 3 = 8] is a great example of a true statement independent of the mind. The fact that “8” is the answer (when you add 3 to 5) is true under any circumstance including whether or not I have any knowledge of the problem in question. That is, no matter how sincerely an individual believes the answer to be something other than “8” the truth of the statement [5+3=8] remains unchanged (i.e., OBJECTIVELY TRUE).
CREATED or DISCOVERED MORALITY
Atheists like to mention the way we currently treat women, don’t hold slaves, and allow people of different ethnicities to marry, as evidence of how morality has always “evolved” and is, therefore, nothing more than a product of Darwinian evolution. Women’s rights, the emancipation of slaves, and allowing miscegenation are definitely changes, but are these changes for “THE BETTER?” We all recognize that the changes here are a moral improvement. But, by what objective measuring stick is the atheist using to make that judgment? You see, we can explain coherently within the confines of our worldview why those actions are a moral improvement, but the only thing the atheist has to work with is to speculate some long term survival benefit. The bottom line is these changes are either CREATED (by a society) for survival adaptations, or we DISCOVERED ways of being more aligned with THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF GOOD (GOD).
The atheist needs to answer the following: If (keyword here is “IF”) survivability (Darwinian morality) is your standard for morality, and a society REASONS that the weak, disabled, and elderly are a disadvantage, and not an advantage to survival, would it be OK to murder the weak, disabled, and elderly? After all, as one atheist we debated put it, “Man is a social animal and there is a selective advantage to the way we think, and through reason each generation creates the society that we want to live in.”
At this point, the atheist has the logical outworking of his worldview staring him in the face. If he DENIES that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then he denies his worldview. On the other hand, If he AFFIRMS that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then he denies his humanity.
The bottom line here is, if OBJECTIVE morality is CREATED then a society could CREATE a system of morality where murder, rape, and torturing babies for fun is NOT objectively wrong. But we all know there IS something OBJECTIVELY wrong with murder, rape, and torturing babies for fun. It follows, therefore, that OBJECTIVE morality cannot be merely CREATED. Any morality CREATED is grounded in the PREFERENCE of the subjects creating it. OBJECTIVE morality, therefore, is NOT CREATED; it is DISCOVERED (upon moral reflection). Just as there are mathematical truths that are DISCOVERED through our rational intuitions, there are OBJECTIVE moral truths that are DISCOVERED through our moral intuitions.
To clear up confusion and prevent straw men from being erected the following points need to be reiterated:
1. The question is not: Must we BELIEVE in God in order to live moral lives? Many atheists live morally in a way that puts some "believers" to shame.
2. The question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? Of course we can; however, any system formulated will be SUBJECTIVE. Furthermore, it is impossible to formulate a meaningful system of morality or ethics without assuming PURPOSE. Therefore, the atheist/naturalist who explains our existence as time+matter+chance, i.e., just random molecules bouncing around in space, i.e., devoid of any ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, does not have the resources available in their worldview to explain OBJECTIVE morality (which is metaphysical).
“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”-- Kai Nielsen
The atheist needs to answer the following: If (keyword here is “IF”) survivability (Darwinian morality) is your standard for morality, and a society REASONS that the weak, disabled, and elderly are a disadvantage, and not an advantage to survival, would it be OK to murder the weak, disabled, and elderly? After all, as one atheist we debated put it, “Man is a social animal and there is a selective advantage to the way we think, and through reason each generation creates the society that we want to live in.”
At this point, the atheist has the logical outworking of his worldview staring him in the face. If he DENIES that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then he denies his worldview. On the other hand, If he AFFIRMS that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then he denies his humanity.
The bottom line here is, if OBJECTIVE morality is CREATED then a society could CREATE a system of morality where murder, rape, and torturing babies for fun is NOT objectively wrong. But we all know there IS something OBJECTIVELY wrong with murder, rape, and torturing babies for fun. It follows, therefore, that OBJECTIVE morality cannot be merely CREATED. Any morality CREATED is grounded in the PREFERENCE of the subjects creating it. OBJECTIVE morality, therefore, is NOT CREATED; it is DISCOVERED (upon moral reflection). Just as there are mathematical truths that are DISCOVERED through our rational intuitions, there are OBJECTIVE moral truths that are DISCOVERED through our moral intuitions.
To clear up confusion and prevent straw men from being erected the following points need to be reiterated:
1. The question is not: Must we BELIEVE in God in order to live moral lives? Many atheists live morally in a way that puts some "believers" to shame.
2. The question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? Of course we can; however, any system formulated will be SUBJECTIVE. Furthermore, it is impossible to formulate a meaningful system of morality or ethics without assuming PURPOSE. Therefore, the atheist/naturalist who explains our existence as time+matter+chance, i.e., just random molecules bouncing around in space, i.e., devoid of any ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, does not have the resources available in their worldview to explain OBJECTIVE morality (which is metaphysical).
“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”-- Kai Nielsen
THE GROUNDING PROBLEM
3. The question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? I know many atheists who recognize torturing babies for fun is OBJECTIVELY evil (i.e. it is evil in any place at any time). The difference is that the theist has a transcendent anchor (God's nature) to ground that OBVIOUS objective truth; on the other hand, the naturalist worldview has been tried (to ground this OBVIOUS objective truth), and found wanting.
As humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ONTOLOGICAL foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
This is known as "the grounding problem" for atheists/naturalists (regarding OBJECTIVE morality). All attempts to solve this grounding problem have failed because they commit the "IS-OUGHT FALLACY". In fact, I will make a prediction that any attempt by any atheist to provide some objective point of reference to ground OBJECTIVE morality will either assume OBJECTIVE PURPOSE (which their worldview cannot account for) or commit the is-ought fallacy.
Lastly, atheists need to clarify whether or not they agree with the quote below from Michael Ruse. If they do not agree with this quote, they need to explain what exactly they disagree with and why (because this is one of the most logically consistent descriptions of morality from the atheist/naturalist worldview that I have come across):
"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory." (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
As humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ONTOLOGICAL foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
This is known as "the grounding problem" for atheists/naturalists (regarding OBJECTIVE morality). All attempts to solve this grounding problem have failed because they commit the "IS-OUGHT FALLACY". In fact, I will make a prediction that any attempt by any atheist to provide some objective point of reference to ground OBJECTIVE morality will either assume OBJECTIVE PURPOSE (which their worldview cannot account for) or commit the is-ought fallacy.
Lastly, atheists need to clarify whether or not they agree with the quote below from Michael Ruse. If they do not agree with this quote, they need to explain what exactly they disagree with and why (because this is one of the most logically consistent descriptions of morality from the atheist/naturalist worldview that I have come across):
"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory." (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).