Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[NowHereThis]

Moral absolutism is the claim that some acts are always absolutely right or absolutely wrong whatever the circumstances.

For instance, it seems highly reasonable to claim that slavery is absolutely wrong.

But why is it always wrong? It’s not a claim which can be tested by experiment, and although some say it can be proved by philosophical argument, others disagree. It seems the claim has to rest on an authority, and the only absolute authority is God. Therefore God must absolutely prohibit slavery.

The only trouble is that our societies used to keep slaves, and claimed that God never made any such prohibition. It seems they got it wrong and we’re relatively good at interpreting God’s commands. But by the same token, people in two hundred years time will say we got something else wrong and they’re relatively better at interpreting God.

So it seems moral absolutists have to admit that some acts may be absolutely good or bad, they’re just not sure which, while moral relativists have to admit that while they don’t like slavery, it’s just their opinion.

I explained why it is “always wrong.” The “always” is a demand for stability and predictability, and that comes from our need to trust. No appeal to authority necessary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you are saying that there is somewhere I can get a definitive answer to ALL moral problems?

Well, I am telling you that such a place does not exist.

Pose a moral problem which has no definitive answer from the Church.

 

[HelenRose]

I’ve often heard it said that while you can be good whether you believe in God or not, God offers the only possibility of a foundation for morality. Supposedly, in the absence of God morality is reduced to mere opinion that is not sufficient to justify judging any act as good or evil.

I think there can be a non-theistic ground for objective morality. Morality is rooted in our human need to trust each other and thereby facilitate closer cooperation and greater achievements than we could gain by ourselves. Someone who treated morality as mere opinion (and used that for selfish advantage in every situation) would be too changeable to be trustworthy, and wouldn’t receive cooperation, losing out on the gains from said cooperation.

This idea supplies the benefits of positing God as the source of morality (unchanging and negative consequences for failure to act well) without positing a transcendent entity or realm whose mysterious existence is the source of morality.

Thoughts?

Has far as I can make out, without the existence of God who created mankind with a special dignity given to human beings, morality is subject only to Evolutionary Natural Selection. Without the dignity of being “human” we are only social animals similar to a herd of elephants who have a natural survival instinct to a hierarchy within their herd. So morality can not be defined as good or evil. The only morality is survival of the specie. A praying mantis who eats the head of her mate is no more evil than a lion who eats zebras or human beings who kill unwanted and unnecessary babies.

Survival will be the judge of what is moral.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I already said that trust was for the sake of cooperation. If I’m untrustworthy, others will not cooperate with me.

Ah, but you said trust was the foundation of morality – in other words, trust is the ultimate reason or justification for why we should be moral or act in moral ways.

That just seems backwards. If we should be moral so that others will trust us, morality becomes a means to an end – a means to engender trust in others. But if being moral is merely a means to get others to trust us then we aren’t being moral or good for its own sake, but mercenarily to get others to trust us.

Wouldn’t it, then, be just as “right” to engender trust, say among thieves, by cooperating in plots to rob banks so the other thieves with whom I am cooperating will find me trustworthy?

Wouldn’t it be just as trust building to merely play-act a cooperative role (even dishonestly) with those I am seeking to build trust so that they will cooperate with me, provided I can be completely consistent and never give away my real motives?

I mean if it isn’t actually being trustworthy that counts, but rather just having others trust me so that they will cooperate with me, then it really doesn’t matter if someone is trustworthy, merely that they appear to be so to others.

Ergo, morality cannot be merely a means to developing trust because trust isn’t the foundation of morality, rather it is more clearly the case that morality has as one of its potential benefits the engendering of real trust in others provided we are, indeed, completely and sincerely moral for its own sake. We aren’t moral so that we can be trusted, we will be trusted, hopefully, if we are moral – but we will be moral regardless of whether others will trust us or not.

A completely honest person will never be trusted by thieves since his/her moral honesty and conscience will result in the thieves being turned in to officers of the law.

Morality doesn’t always engender trust and trust cannot be the reason or foundation for morality, because what causes some people to trust others isn’t always moral; for example, a code of honour among thieves or conspirators.

 

[inocente]

I explained why it is “always wrong.” The “always” is a demand for stability and predictability, and that comes from our need to trust. No appeal to authority necessary.

There was a lot of stability and predictability in feudalism. The serfs trusted it was their place to be in perpetual bondage to the lords of the manor, who in turn trusted in the divine right of kings to rule over them. Didn’t make it right.

There was a lot of stability and predictability in trusting that women were not as good as men. Didn’t make it right.

History is littered with examples of instability when people distrust the morals of their society, and Christians have often been the first to upturn the apple cart. And why? Because we trust in a higher authority. And if God is for us, who can be against us?

Praise song for struggle, not for trusting predictability .

 

[Bradski]

Pose a moral problem which has no definitive answer from the Church.

What type of animals can we farm for food? Should I go out for a meal tonight or donate the money to charity? Should we close coal mines, putting people out of work but help save the planet? Should we ban the sale of assault weapons to the public? Is it OK to invade privacy to fight terrorism? Should America stop Muslims from entering the country? Is fishing cruel? Can cannabis be used for pain control? What degree of torture is acceptable to inflict on one person to save dozens? Should we ban the teaching of subjects that we know are wrong?

Let me know the specific answer to each of those and where I can find the answer from the church.

And I don’t want YOUR opinion on any of those. And I don’t want wooly interpretations that can be twisted to suit personal preferences.

I have a definite answer to all the above. And I use reasonable arguments to reach my own personal decision. As do you. But you say there are answers to moral problems that can be found through God. So front up God’s call on each of the above.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What type of animals can we farm for food? Should I go out for a meal tonight or donate the money to charity? Should we close coal mines, putting people out of work but help save the planet? Should we ban the sale of assault weapons to the public? Is it OK to invade privacy to fight terrorism? Should America stop Muslims from entering the country? Is fishing cruel? Can cannabis be used for pain control? What degree of torture is acceptable to inflict on one person to save dozens? Should we ban the teaching of subjects that we know are wrong?

Let me know the specific answer to each of those and where I can find the answer from the church.

And I don’t want YOUR opinion on any of those. And I don’t want wooly interpretations that can be twisted to suit personal preferences.

I have a definite answer to all the above. And I use reasonable arguments to reach my own personal decision. As do you. But you say there are answers to moral problems that can be found through God. So front up God’s call on each of the above.

The resolution to some of the moral questions you pose relies more upon common sense than anything else. Why you think the Catholic Church must offer answers to every moral question that needs only common sense to answer it is beyond me.

I believe all your so-called “reasonable arguments” to answer those questions may well possibly be in agreement with the teachings of the Church. But obviously you have set up a straw man argument here. You are assuming the Church does not teach moral principles that can answer all moral questions. If that is so, it is only because there are millions of moral questions and the Church cannot write millions of books answering all those moral question. Like you, the Church relies on “reasonable arguments” derived from fundamental Catholic principles which have been spelled out in great detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to help those who are puzzled and need assistance.

I’m not aware of any such compendium of assistance offered by any atheist authority. To hear atheists talk about solving moral questions, it amounts quite obviously to demanding that each atheist must reinvent the moral wheel for himself using what brains he has to do so. But if he is brainless or clueless, that’s just too bad. He mustn’t go to God with his moral uncertainty looking for help.

I will end this post by pointing out that you have the irksome habit of posing nonsensical questions as if they were meaningful. Such as: “Should I go out for a meal tonight or donate the money to charity?” You obviously should do whatever you can reasonably do out of the goodness of your heart or for the goodness of your belly. Why does a question like this need to be answered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when the Catechism and conscience both tell us that we must tend both to our bodies and to our souls according to the common sense we were given by God to do so.

 

[Bradski]

The resolution to some of the moral questions you pose relies more upon common sense than anything else. Why you think the Catholic Church must offer answers to every moral question that needs only common sense to answer it is beyond me.

Well, that wasn’t much of a suprise, was it.

You asked me to propose a moral question that didn’t have definitive answer fom the church and when I give you half a dozen you meekly complain that they are all common sense problems. That is, there ARE no answers from the church on those and a gazillion other problems.

All you have to point to is: Don’t use contraception, don’t masturbate, don’t do this, don’t do that. But when it comes down to moral problems that require reasonable arguments, you come up with - ‘but that’s just common sense’.

Whose common sense, Charles? Yours? Don’t make me laugh…

 

[HelenRose]

What type of animals can we farm for food? Should I go out for a meal tonight or donate the money to charity? Should we close coal mines, putting people out of work but help save the planet? Should we ban the sale of assault weapons to the public? Is it OK to invade privacy to fight terrorism? Should America stop Muslims from entering the country? Is fishing cruel? Can cannabis be used for pain control? What degree of torture is acceptable to inflict on one person to save dozens? Should we ban the teaching of subjects that we know are wrong?

Let me know the specific answer to each of those and where I can find the answer from the church.

And I don’t want YOUR opinion on any of those. And I don’t want wooly interpretations that can be twisted to suit personal preferences.

I have a definite answer to all the above. And I use reasonable arguments to reach my own personal decision. As do you. But you say there are answers to moral problems that can be found through God. So front up God’s call on each of the above.

There is a wonderful word that is used quite often in the Catholic Church. That word is “discernment”. If we expected the Church to answer every question that we can conjure up we would have no reason to discern. God gave us a brain and a wonderful road map. It isn’t the responsibility of the Church to answer every question we may have it is our responsibility to use our God given brains.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I’ve often heard it said that while you can be good whether you believe in God or not, God offers the only possibility of a foundation for morality. Supposedly, in the absence of God morality is reduced to mere opinion that is not sufficient to justify judging any act as good or evil.

I think there can be a non-theistic ground for objective morality. Morality is rooted in our human need to trust each other and thereby facilitate closer cooperation and greater achievements than we could gain by ourselves. Someone who treated morality as mere opinion (and used that for selfish advantage in every situation) would be too changeable to be trustworthy, and wouldn’t receive cooperation, losing out on the gains from said cooperation.

This idea supplies the benefits of positing God as the source of morality (unchanging and negative consequences for failure to act well) without positing a transcendent entity or realm whose mysterious existence is the source of morality.

Thoughts?

You cannot have the greatest good without the direction of a supreme being, namely God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, that wasn’t much of a suprise, was it.

You asked me to propose a moral question that didn’t have definitive answer fom the church and when I give you half a dozen you meekly complain that they are all common sense problems. That is, there ARE no answers from the church on those and a gazillion other problems.

All you have to point to is: Don’t use contraception, don’t masturbate, don’t do this, don’t do that. But when it comes down to moral problems that require reasonable arguments, you come up with - ‘but that’s just common sense’.

Whose common sense, Charles? Yours? Don’t make me laugh…

I GAVE YOU A REASONABLE ANSWER AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS LAUGH?

 

[Bradski]

I GAVE YOU A REASONABLE ANSWER AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS LAUGH?

I love the way you discern it as ‘reasonable’, but if amyone suggests that one should use reason to determine matters, then it’s discounted out of hand.

Yeah, Charles. You really make me laugh. Well, after the coughing and spluttering I’ve been doing what with the smell of burning rubber due to your extraordinary back peddling.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I love the way you discern it as ‘reasonable’, but if amyone suggests that one should use reason to determine matters, then it’s discounted out of hand.

Yeah, Charles. You really make me laugh. Well, after the coughing and spluttering I’ve been doing what with the smell of burning rubber due to your extraordinary back peddling.

No back peddling. As Helen pointed out, you don’t understand discernment. If you did, you would know that every Catholic does not have to run to the catechism for an answer to ALL his moral questions. Choosing between going out for a meal and donating the cost of the meal to the poor is not a moral conundrum as you seem to imply. One can easily do both on the same day, or on alternate days, if one is so disposed. Some Catholics give all their wealth to the poor, whether it be in money or time or service (as in the case of a Mother Teresa). We are all called to be perfect. Not all are going to be perfect, and some of us are going to be considerably less perfect than others.

If you are going to argue that atheists can use their reason and common sense to solve moral questions, why can’t you give that same allowance for Christians?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you are going to argue that atheists can use their reason and common sense to solve moral questions, why can’t you give that same allowance for Christians?

But more to the point, there is no such thing as atheistic morality. Never heard of it. There are no moral imperatives for atheists. They are free to create their own moral imperatives for themselves. The result is that society will, as it becomes increasingly atheistic/agnostic, lose its moral cohesion and begin to allow just about any kind of behavior as permissible because it is not anchored by any absolutes, human or divine. Today same-sex marriage, tomorrow, polygamy, the next day incestuous marriages. Gradually the line between decent and indecent behavior becomes blurred until, sooner or later, adults demanding sex with children becomes the topic of the last and vilest campaign for sexual freedom (NAMBLA).

 

[Tomdstone]

Gradually the line between decent and indecent behavior becomes blurred until, sooner or later, adults demanding sex with children becomes the topic of the last and vilest campaign for sexual freedom (NAMBLA).

NAMBLA is not such a good example, because I read somewhere that a Roman Catholic priest was a semi-founder, or at least was there supporting the cause at the time of the founding, of NAMBLA ? And he received a very nice letter of recommendation when he applied for a transfer to San Bernadino?

 

[Tomdstone]

Pose a moral problem which has no definitive answer from the Church.

There are some questions concerning capital punishment, torture and burning of heretics at the stake. The answers have varied over the years. Also, with slavery, historically there have been two more or less independent ways of dealing with the morality of slavery over the centuries. On the one hand, there has been a lot of support in the Church to end slavery and to treat each person with equality and dignity. But on the other hand, unfortunately, there have been found examples of where slavery was allowed according to Church pronouncements and practices.

 

[Tomdstone]

Pose a moral problem which has no definitive answer from the Church.

Is it moral to use atomic weapons in time of war?
IMHO, it is not, but I have seen a lot of Roman Catholics argue that the use of the atom bomb against Japan was morally justified.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it moral to use atomic weapons in time of war?
IMHO, it is not, but I have seen a lot of Roman Catholics argue that the use of the atom bomb against Japan was morally justified.

The question is not what a lot of Catholics believe, but what the Catholic Church categorically teaches. Aiming nuclear weapons at civilian populations (or even military populations) cannot possibly be justified under any circumstances. Today, especially, it is an invitation to Armageddon and the principal reason why Iran and North Korea (both of whose governments are controlled by insane men) could actually become in time the gateway to Armageddon if they are not disarmed and/or prevented from further arming themselves with nuclear weapons.

This from the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *for any Catholic who is uncertain:

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes."

Atheism, since it is disorganized and without moral authority, can offer no such moral guidance to atheists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

NAMBLA is not such a good example, because I read somewhere that a Roman Catholic priest was a semi-founder, or at least was there supporting the cause at the time of the founding, of NAMBLA ? And he received a very nice letter of recommendation when he applied for a transfer to San Bernadino?

It is not the policy of the Catholic Church to promote pedophilia. There are pedophile priests and bishops, just as there are pedophile atheists. The devil is after everyone.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are some questions concerning capital punishment, torture and burning of heretics at the stake. The answers have varied over the years. Also, with slavery, historically there have been two more or less independent ways of dealing with the morality of slavery over the centuries. On the one hand, there has been a lot of support in the Church to end slavery and to treat each person with equality and dignity. But on the other hand, unfortunately, there have been found examples of where slavery was allowed according to Church pronouncements and practices.

The Church’s record concerning slavery has not been a sterling one, but it has been vastly superior to some non-Christian cultures where slavery is practiced to this day. Atheism per se can say nothing about slavery because it is narrowly limited in its scope. Atheists are free to support or oppose atheism according to the disposition in their hearts. But it is noteworthy that arguably the most tyrannical state in the world today, North Korea, is a dominantly atheist state in which the ruler is treated as the virtual Master of everyone.