In Atheism can objective morality exist through evolution?

[BornInMarch]

Because the question is specifically about whether atheists specifically can believe in objective morality or not. I argued that they can, and used as my basis scientists who already believe in objective truths with regard to math and science and for who believing in objective truth with regard to morality wouldn’t be such a large leap.

Theistic scientists, though also believing that math and science are objective truths, wouldn’t be relevant to this discussion.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[The_Revelator]

Okay, let me see if I can clarify why there’s no such thing as objective truths (morality), even if there’s a God. If I tell you that my goal is to lose weight, then automatically certain things become good, and certain things become bad, based solely upon whether or not they tend toward that goal. Even if I’m unaware of which things do or don’t lead toward that goal, the goal itself mandates which things are good, and which things aren’t. But without that goal it’s impossible to distinguish what’s good from what’s bad.

Which is why I asked what it is that would make the killing of a daughter that’s been raped immoral. There has to be a reason why it’s immoral, it’s not just objectively immoral. Just like eating a half a tub of ice cream isn’t necessarily bad, unless one has specifically set it as a goal to lose weight. The specific goal is what makes it bad.

Now, for things to be morally good and bad there has to be something…be it God or whatever…that has set a standard against which things can be judged to be good and bad. Things can’t…in and of themselves…be good and bad. In the case of a theist, it’s God that supposedly sets the standard by which things can be judged to be good and bad. In the case of an atheist, it’s the atheist themselves that presumes to set their own standard. But apart from those standards, things don’t have an objective morality in and of themselves.

If they don’t have a morality in and of themselves, then they’re subject to someone else conveying upon them that morality. That makes that morality subjective, because it makes it contingent upon something else for its existence.

Morality is subjective whether or not there’s a God.

 

[IWantGod]

No. Practical survival theories can exist for the atheist. “i want the best possible scenario and thus i should do this or that to achieve it or support a particular social worldview” Thats about it.

But the belief that ones conscience or sense of guilt points to an objective standard of morality that is true regardless of whether humans agree with it or not (divine moral law) is not a tenable position for a materialist to hold. But i suppose a person can be an atheist and still believe in a transphysical reality. I suppose they could believe there is such a thing as moral truth while not believing in a moral lawgiver, but that is not a rational position to hold in my opinion.

 

[Wesrock]

I avoided diving into this before because this topic is about how atheist ethics can be grounded in objective fact, but again, you don’t have a proper understanding of how Catholic moral teaching is grounded. We are, largely, essentialists.

Take for example the idea of triangularity. It is objective fact that triangularity, being a triangle, means having three straight sides whose angles, in Euclidean space, add up to 180 degrees. You can change the words and the system of measurement, but that objective truth about that which we call triangularity just is what a triangle is. That is a real definition, not nominal. Likewise, there are certain true things that simply follow from being human, and that includes what is good for a human being. Two arms, two legs, two eyes, and yes, even proper ends of our behavior and the choices we make. This is not some artificially imposed design, but simply what being a triangle or being a human is from an essentialist standpoint. A triangle, and I don’t just mean the English word, but beyond that, the concept of a triangle, can’t simply be redefined as a shape with four straight sides whose angles add up to 360 degrees in Euclidean space. You change that fact and you are no longer considering what it is essentially to be a triangle, but what it is to essentially be a rectangle. Likewise, you change the ends of a human being, and you are no longer considering what it is to be essentially a human being but what it is to be essentially something else. The moral law is not something arbitrarily imposed on us, but just is part of what it is to essentially be a human. God had knowledge of this essence and chose to create it as opposed to some other essence. It’s not something that He can change, anymore than He can make a triangular-rectangle (or square-circle, as is more commonly said). It’s a contradiction.

There’s much more to be written, but Catholic morality is grounded in these truths that follow from an essentialist view of reality. This doesn’t mean we have total knowledge of what it is to essentially be a human or what have you, only that we are able to at least gain real knowledge of what it is to essentially be a human through observation and reasoning.

Now, we could certainly have a debate about essentialism, and also about nominalism, conceptualism, and realism, and furthermore between such things as Platonic Realism, Aristotlean Realism, and Scholastic (or Thomist) Realism (and maybe a few other branches), and perhaps further discussion about this essentialist view versus something like divine command theory, ways of thinking which might be unfamiliar to you, but that’s not what this topic is about, and I’ve only just scratched the surface.

 

[Wesrock]

If we need to be specific, then it’s down to empathy and reciprocal altruism.

I don’t know about you (well, I hope I do), but I would be upset to see anyone suffer unnecessarily. Admittedly, the closer to home that occurs, the more it affects us. We tend to look after our immediate family and circle of friends more than we do with strangers. You’d save your wife from the burning building before the random stranger (evolution at work).

But that circle extends outwards to include almost everyone, especially if we are given specific details about the person. If I told you that a child just died in Uganda while you were reading this sentence, it wouldn’t affect you in the slightest. But if I were to tell you the child’s name, show you a picture, tell you about her life and possible hoes for the future and detailed the manner in which she died, I’d hope that it would have some effect on you.

Likewise the fact that a man is going to kill his daughter. You almost certainly couldn’t do anything to physically stop it (it’s happening a world away in an area where you have no influence), but you could certainly put forward arguments why it is wrong. Without recourse to any religious teaching. As would I.

Reasonable arguments beat unreasonable ones.

I certainly agree that such thing is horrible. But what would be the reasonable argument to be made here? Any non-emotional argument would seem to at least need to hold to some type of teleology within nature. Or do you disagree?

 

[Wesrock]

Just in reply to this, many mathematicians and physicists hold to something like a Platonic Realism, though not necessarily God, per se.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Killing your daughter in that case would be wrong because every human is made in the image of God, and God has commanded we treat each other with the dignity belonging to them. Therefore it would be a dual sin, one sin against charity in treating another person without the dignity they deserve, and then also a sin against justice in that God alone is responsible for deciding the parameters in which a life can be taken and He has not given permission to kill rape victims.

 

[edwest21]

Well said. There are rules and standards and, to quote Pope Benedict, “If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

Laws exist and have existed but the debates are generally not productive. What can be said is that the West is fragmented into various groups going by various labels. This is tribalism. This is radical individualism. That way, different small tribal groups form that are based around a different subsets of approaches regarding questions about “objective morality.” My readings of what atheists have to say leads me to conclude that whatever answer suits me is my answer. It may not be your answer. So, relativism is the only option.

Evolution has no bearing on this in any functional sense.

 

[Bradskii]

Killing your daughter in that case would be wrong because every human is made in the image of God, and God has commanded we treat each other with the dignity belonging to them. Therefore it would be a dual sin, one sin against charity in treating another person without the dignity they deserve, and then also a sin against justice in that God alone is responsible for deciding the parameters in which a life can be taken and He has not given permission to kill rape victims.

Let’s say that a man is going to kill his daughter. Let’s say that he is immune to any religious reasons why he should not do so. What arguments would you use to persuade him not to carry out his threat?

 

[ChunkMonk]

If I was in personal proximity to him? I would use the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum and tell him that if he kills his daughter then I will kill him.

If I was not in personal proxomity than I would give him the real reasons and be completely unsurprised that a man who is immune to religious reasoning is also a homicidal maniac.

 

[Bradskii]

If I was in personal proximity to him? I would use the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum and tell him that if he kills his daughter then I will kill him.

If I was not in personal proxomity than I would give him the real reasons and be completely unsurprised that a man who is immune to religious reasoning is also a homicidal maniac.

So what would those reasons be (without using religious arguments, which he will reject)?

 

[Wesrock]

I understand that this is directed at ChunkMonk, but going off of what I said before, the best (in my view) way to approach it would be a natural law argument. Based on an essentialist conception of reality, there is an objective truth about how humans should behave, what is good for them, what reduces the good for them, and so on. Our lack of complete information about “what it is to be human” means that there will be disagreement. A person could present a case along the lines of humans being social and familial creatures, parents should naturally protect their children in general as that’s a natural part of procreation and childbearing and continuing the species, and furthermore it’s unjust to punish someone for what they cannot be held culpable for (just a brief sketch here about the lines that can be taken). Now, maybe Joe Shmo has a slightly different idea of what follows from “what it is to be human”, and will make a different argument with different results. Nobody is denying that such disagreements can and will exist. But under an essentialist view, there is that objective truth underneath, and we would look to make the most reasonable case about what that objective truth is, and the most reasonable case should be followed. People mistake the disagreements as indicating that there is no objective truth, but isuch disagreements really stem from lack of complete information of that objective truth, which allows people to draw different conclusions. We use what partial knowledge we do have to make reasoned arguments about what we’re observing. So it becomes a philosophical inquiry into the question, “what is it to be human?” or “what moral laws follow from human nature?” However, without such an “objective truth” about “what it is to be human” underneath to be observed, reasoned arguments aren’t making a case for anything real to begin with.

 

[The_Revelator]

Likewise, you change the ends of a human being, and you are no longer considering what it is to be essentially a human being but what it is to be essentially something else. The moral law is not something arbitrarily imposed on us, but just is part of what it is to essentially be a human. God had knowledge of this essence and chose to create it as opposed to some other essence. It’s not something that He can change, anymore than He can make a triangular-rectangle (or square-circle, as is more commonly said). It’s a contradiction.

You’re saying that moral law, good and evil, are an essential part of being human. So when Genesis says, “you shall become like God, knowing good and evil.” What’s the good and evil of which it’s speaking?

Were Adam and Eve not human? Did they not, according to your own assertion, already know good and evil thanks to their very nature as humans? If a triangle MUST have three sides. And a human MUST have a knowledge of good and evil, then what could Genesis possibly be referring to?

 

[Benadam]

I just have to put in my two. Hope I’m not being rude. I’m not versed in the language of philosophy but…

I say no it can’t.

It seems to me

The object of the will is the ‘good’. Whatever that may be. I think that’s correct.

Wouldn’t an objective ‘good’ that isn’t material be required for objective morality to emerge? A good that isn’t about corporeal needs? Without that wouldn’t morality remain subjective? I don’t see how a material process could produce awareness of a good that isn’t material.

 

[Benadam]

a human MUST have a knowledge of good and evil, then what could Genesis possibly be referring to?

The knowledge Genesis is referring to is a union of likeness. That likeness can only happen if the object of their will was evil and they acted on their will. Acting on it gains them experience and consequently a likeness to evil. They knew evil in as much as it was perceived. For them it was perceived as a spiritual image,(imo) not a reality they knew by way of likeness.

 

[The_Revelator]

The knowledge Genesis is referring to is a union of likeness. That likeness can only happen if the object of their will was evil and they acted on their will. Acting on it gains them experience and consequently a likeness to evil. They knew evil in as much as it was perceived. For them it was perceived as a spiritual image,(imo) not a reality they knew by way of likeness.

For me to respond would require me to assume that I know what you’re talking about…when in fact I don’t…so I won’t.

 

[HarryStotle]

You’re saying that moral law, good and evil, are an essential part of being human. So when Genesis says, “you shall become like God, knowing good and evil.” What’s the good and evil of which it’s speaking?

Were Adam and Eve not human? Did they not, according to your own assertion, already know good and evil thanks to their very nature as humans? If a triangle MUST have three sides. And a human MUST have a knowledge of good and evil, then what could Genesis possibly be referring to?

This is actually a very good question. The best answer I’ve come across so far is from Jordan Peterson in his talks on the Bible – the one on Adam and Eve, I think. I’ll try to provide a link as an edit later.

Edit: The link is here:

Start at about 2:10:00 (two hours and ten minutes into the video for the precise reference to knowledge of good and evil. However, for sufficient background, start at about 1:45:00 or better still at the beginning. I have never seen or read a more profound and complete explanation of this idea.

His thesis is that knowledge of evil means a deep awareness of the effects of evil on one’s own psyche. Suffering the effects of evil – I.e., having knowledge of evil – provides a kind of deep insight into how others can be most hurt at a deeply personal level. That means someone who has experienced evil encounters intimately its effects and can use that knowledge if so disposed to “hit 'em where it hurts the most,” so to speak. This is why Adam and Eve covered themselves after the fall. They felt very vulnerable because of what they had come to know about each other and what the other could do to them as a result of having that knowledge.

There is much more to this idea than I can provide at the moment, but Peterson’s talk is well worth listening to if you want to understand the idea of knowledge of good and evil better.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

I think this helps

Does Objective Morality Depend Upon God?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Today kicks off an eight-part debate on the resolution, "Does objective morality depend on the existence of God?" Over the next eight days, we'll hear from two sharp young thinkers. Joe Heschmeyer, a Catholic seminarian in Kansas City, Kansas, will argue the affirmative view. Steven D

strangenotions.com

and

 

[The_Revelator]

Start at about 2:10:00 (two hours and ten minutes into the video for the precise reference to knowledge of good and evil. However, for sufficient background, start at about 1:45:00 or better still at the beginning. I have never seen or read a more profound and complete explanation of this idea.
His thesis is that knowledge of evil means a deep awareness of the effects of evil on one’s own psyche. Suffering the effects of evil – I.e., having knowledge of evil – provides a kind of deep insight into how others can be most hurt at a deeply personal level. That means someone who has experienced evil encounters intimately its effects and can use that knowledge if so disposed to “hit 'em where it hurts the most,” so to speak. This is why Adam and Eve covered themselves after the fall. They felt very vulnerable because of what they had come to know about each other and what the other could do to them as a result of having that knowledge.

There is much more to this idea than I can provide at the moment, but Peterson’s talk is well worth listening to if you want to understand the idea of knowledge of good and evil better.

I’m sorry, but I began watching the video at the 1:45:00 mark as per your suggestion, and I just wanted to reach out and grab Mr. Peterson by the throat, and say STOP. You’re being way too over-analytical, convoluted, misinformed, and flat out wrong. It would take me an excessive amount of time to rebut all of the errors in his reasoning. But fortunately for Mr. Peterson and for you, I’m a fairly patient guy, and I’m used to listening to bad arguments. So I was able to muddle through to the 2:15:00 mark, where the idea that you pointed out, was put forth. That the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve gained upon eating the apple, was the understanding of how to use this knowledge against others. Prior to that, the knowledge of good and evil was meant to govern one’s own behaviour, which could be deemed to be a good thing, but after eating of the apple this knowledge became a weapon which could be used against others. So what Adam and Eve gained wasn’t the knowledge of good and evil per se, but the knowledge of how to use it to cause harm to others.

(Continued next post)

 

[The_Revelator]

So I think that I have some idea of what you’re getting at, and I find it interesting, but I run into a problem when trying to extend this argument to Adam and Eve’s nakedness. Because either nakedness is innately evil, or it isn’t. It’s not an either or, or a maybe. The whole point of this thread is whether there’s an objective gauge of good and evil. If there is, then it can’t change. But what you seem to be asserting is that good and evil are circumstantial. It’s not evil for example for a baby to be naked. But at some point, as in the case of Adam and Eve, it becomes evil. The problem then lies in asserting that we’ll all agree on what that point is. To be objective, and innate in humans, we have to agree on the point at which nakedness becomes evil, otherwise it’s merely subjective. So tell me…what’s the point at which being naked becomes evil? And will you and every other Catholic agree on what that point is? What about every other human?

For example, I might argue that being naked becomes evil when it causes me to become aroused. But someone else might argue that it actually becomes evil when it causes anyone to become aroused. To which someone else could point out that there may be those few for whom even the image of a naked baby might cause them to become aroused. Therefore ALL nakedness is evil.

Do you see the problem in asserting that good and evil are objective and innate to all humans?