Hellopeople and I (among a few others) began a conversation in another thread.
My basic assertion is that it is inconsistent to deny the existence of God while at the same time admitting the existence of morality. The idea goes like this: atheists (or at least materialist atheists) believe that there is nothing but matter. We have no souls, there are no higher powers, etc. We are a grouping of atoms, which, due to certain chemical or mechanical reactions, began to be able to move on our own. I assert that if that is true, and we are simply atoms, then it is meaningless to say that some movements or reactions of atoms are more morally right than others. Thus, larger ideas of morality are meaningless in a materialist perspective.
Hellopeople replied that atheists don’t actually believe in objective morality which is the same for every person. Instead, what we all consider to be morality is, in an atheist’s mind, not compliance with some larger law, but compliance with a social contract such as the golden rule, or making oneself feel good by helping others. As I understand hellopeople’s point, harming others is “immoral” to an atheist because it is unpleasant. (Please correct me if I have misread your assertions).
My question for the forum is this: is morality relative? Or can we reason the existence of an objective morality that applies equally to all people, regardless of their circumstances?
(Catholics obviously believe morality to be objective, i.e. from God. Can we still observe objective morality outside of biblical or Church sources? From arguments an atheist would accept?)
I’ve discussed this meta-ethical problem with atheists many times. Rather than give you a plethora of positive arguments
for the existence of objective morality, let me just tell you the default position I always employ to counter the moral relativist. I do it primarily by shifting the burden of proof onto
them–after all,
they are the ones making the claim, yes?
(1) Moral relativists will claim morality is subjective; and they will cite the phenomenon of disagreement among people as counting as evidence for this claim. Or, they will cite disagreement as **lack of evidence **for thinking objective moral values **do **exist and try to shift the burden of proof onto you. Don’t get caught in this trap. So…
(2) Press them on
why the phenomenon of disagreement is supposed to even
count as evidence at all that objective moral
facts don’t exist, or, why disagreement is even supposed to **count **as *lack of evidence *for thinking objective moral facts
do exist. For instance, if Bob falsely believes John Kerry is the president of the United States, and Bill falsely believes John McCain is the president of the United States, is their disagreement any guide or justification for our concluding that, therefore, there is **no fact **of the matter about **who is really **president of the United States after all? No. This is absurd. Even if people disagree on X, this disagreement does not entail there is no fact of the matter about X at all. Therefore, the phenomenon of disagreement is **not a very good reason **for thinking objective moral values might be
non-objective. By doing this, you’ve just *defeated *their alleged “evidence” so that they consequently have no more firm ground to stand on for even defending their position anymore at all. Haha!
(3) Show them all the instances of where people DO agree on objective moral principles. In fact, quite arguably, there is more widespread **agreement ** rather than **disgareement ** on which objective moral values are the correct ones. So the relativist
can’t suppress THIS evidence without being intellectually dishonest with his own biasedly chosen instances of
disagreement.
(4) Don’t let them tell you that just because people will apply a moral principle differently in different contexts that there is therefore little or no reason, for instance, for thinking Justice is objective. They are confusing moral
absolutism which says one moral principle is non-negotiable across all circumstances and contexts with moral
objectivism which says most or all moral principles are overridable by other moral principles but each moral principle is still **objectively binding **on each and every person.
For instance, “thou shalt not lie” can be an overridable moral principle in a circumstance where the Nazi Gestapo are interrogating you if your are giving asylum to a Jewish Family with three babies to whom they are going to gas, torture, and perform digusting medical experiments. It is better to lie to the Nazis then tell them the truth. Why? Because the other moral principle “Always save as many lives as possible when the act is of very little cost to yourself” overrides the moral principle “always tell the truth.” This overridability of one moral principle by another is not evidence that objective morality doesn’t exist. Quite the contrary. When you take polls about what one ought to do in a given circumstance such as the Nazi Gestapo example above, there is almost universal and unanimous agreement. So it is **more likely **that objective moral values exist than do not exist.
(5) Notice, too, that all of our moral principles will be given different intepretations by people in different societies, but the moral principles
themselves never change. The moral principle found in
Justice, for instance, will simply have many different instances of it expressed in different contexts and by different socieities. For instance, Justice might be construed as “One ought to always pay one’s debts” by one rather materialistic society, and construed as “One ought to always punish a criminal proporitional to his crime” in another society. But these are *not *contradictory notions of Justice. They are merely different instances OF it.
These are the strategic suggestions I find very helpful
And to help guide you, here are some moral principles almost all societies and cultures agree on (and for those who don’t agree–the reason is that they are
wrong, not because morality is
subjective):
(1) Do not kill innocent people.
(2) Do not cause unneccesary pain or suffering.
(3) Do not cheat or steal.
(4) Keep your promise and honor your contracts.
(5) Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.
(6) Do justice, treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
(7) Help other people, at least when the cost to oneself is minimal./
(8) Reciprocate (show gratitude for services rendered).
(9) Obey just laws.
