Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

On a question of morals? When they are using ‘theistic morality’? So how do we know who is right? If using ‘theistic morality’ doesn’t always give us the right answer, indeed can in this case give one that is diametrically opposed to some views (also reached by reference to ‘theistic morality’), then can you tell me how we know who is interpreting it correctly?

Theistic morality gets us away from “who is right” to “there is such a thing as right.” Without theistic morality what you are left with is there is no right that every moral agent is accountable to because in the end - given that matter is all there is - it won’t make a whiff of difference what you think or do anyway.

With theistic morality there is no escaping that since Existence Itself is fundamentally intentional and purposeful, every moral agent will be accountable, not merely to themselves but to Ultimate Reality itself.

Whether or not you find it difficult to work out the particulars of moral behaviour because there are differing opinions, the fact of the matter is that you will be held accountable for at least doing your best to figure out which view is most correct. I am sure you would not hesitate to give your considered opinion on such matters. Whether or not the “considered” part is sufficiently close to being correct will be demonstrated in due time.

What I don’t think is a wise move would be to use the fact that different opinions exist as an excuse to NOT do your best to work out which view is the most right one. In that sense it is pretty much irrelevant whether or not different opinions exist as long as the first principle guiding you is that there is one right view to be had in the end. Atheistic morality doesn’t get you there.

 

[Tomdstone]

… the first principle guiding you is that there is one right view to be had in the end.

But if you cannot find the “right view”, then the principle is useless. Take for example, using torture to extract confessions from a heretic in the Inquisition. Is that right or wrong? Some have argued it is right. Others will say it is wrong. Both will appeal to theistic moral principles.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thank you.

You are most cordially welcome.

Why should someone have to submit to this paradigm?

Who says that they should? I certainly did NOT.

Someone says, “I prefer to rape women and I don’t care a whit if you try to rape me. I’m bigger than you. And stronger. Just try to rape me. And I happen to be in power.”

Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you. When push comes to shove, the strongest bully on the block with have his own way. The law of the jungle prevails. If I cannot, I will go underground and bide my time. Guerilla warfare is very effective. Don’t forget, there is no difference between a “freedom fighter” and a “terrorist”. If agree with the “cause” then your comrades are “freedom fighters”, if you disagree with them, then they are “terrorists”.

Thank you for this, too.

You are still welcome.

Someone else may find it rational to assert: those who are the most intelligent have the most value.

What’s the atheistic rejoinder to this?

Intelligent people maximize their own well-being, and they realize that a proper balance of cooperation / confrontation is necessary to do that. That attitude comes from pure mathematics, where individual preferences do not count… remember you were talking about rational beings.

Absolutely not.

It is NOT my preference. In fact, some things which are viewed as wrong are definitely NOT my preference.

Well, that is perfectly fine. If you submit to an authority that you do NOT agree with, that is your choice. My opinion is not relevant.

---

Let me enlighten you about my opinion… and that is nothing but an opinion. The whole argument of “moral” and “immoral” is a bunch of nonsense. It is nothing but personal opinions. Questions about “metaphysics” can be objectively examined… what exists and what does not exist? Questions about “ethics” (morality) are all subjective. There is no proper epistemological method to decide if behavior “A” is preferable to behavior “B”.

It is the same kind of questions: “is the bathwater’s temperature too hot, or not hot enough, or just fine”? Or to examine: “is the salt content of the dish renders it to be too salty, or too bland, or just fine”? All these are personal preferences. The only difference is that personal preferences about the temperature of the bath water, or the saltiness of the dish are not subject to regulations… (at least for the time being… though the “fat-police” is looming on the horizon) but the “morality” of certain actions might be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But if you cannot find the “right view”, then the principle is useless. Take for example, using torture to extract confessions from a heretic in the Inquisition. Is that right or wrong? Some have argued it is right. Others will say it is wrong. Both will appeal to theistic moral principles.

You are missing the point. In order to even go looking for the right view, there has to be a prior understanding that there is a right view.

Someone who denies there is a right view won’t even begin inquiring after such a beast.

The question of What is the right view? depends entirely upon the assumption that a right view does, in fact, exist.

Again whether different moral views may be held for various reasons or which of them is correct is the subject of discussion AFTER establishing with certainty that a right view is to be had.

If you keep backtracking from the mere fact that the right view is not always obvious or clear to therefore there is no right view, then there is no point even taking up the question to begin with, with you, because it merely signals a lack of commitment on your part to the task of working through the dense brush that surrounds the treasured “right view.”

 

[Tomdstone]

You are missing the point. In order to even go looking for the right view, there has to be a prior understanding that there is a right view.

Someone who denies there is a right view won’t even begin inquiring after such a beast.

The question of What is the right view? depends entirely upon the assumption that a right view does, in fact, exist.

Again whether different moral views may be held for various reasons or which of them is correct is the subject of discussion AFTER establishing with certainty that a right view is to be had.

If you keep backtracking from the mere fact that the right view is not always obvious or clear to therefore there is no right view, then there is no point even taking up the question to begin with, with you, because it merely signals a lack of commitment on your part to the task of working through the dense brush that surrounds the treasured “right view.”

If there is no way of finding a diamond, how do you verify that it is there in the first place?

 

[Anthony_V]

Theistic morality gets us away from “who is right” to “there is such a thing as right.”

What do you mean by “Theistic morality?” Do you mean that it is grounded in natural law, which is grounded in God a la St. Thomas’ fifth way? Or do you mean that morality is separable from creation such that God could have made us with moral obligations, virtues, and vices different and even contradictory to those which are incumbent upon us now?

*Given the prior:
*Sure, in the order of being, we would need somewhere to ground teleology, but in the order of discovery it seems that right reason can determine, even if with difficulty, what is virtuous or vicious based upon knowledge of the human nature alone. In that sense, it seems strange to appeal to a Theistic morality, if you don’t need to make reference to God to determine right from wrong at least in the order of understanding – even if, for a rational creature, actions are ordered towards God in either a natural way (for a natural end) or a supernatural way (for a supernatural end). Again, you just need proper knowledge of human nature; the fact that God made nature a certain way is the proximate grounding point for morality and the rest of natural law, even if it is remotely grounded in the Divine mind, as we see in the fifth way.

Given the latter:
How do you square that with Aristotelian teleology? And how is it defensible against Deontological and Consequentualist ethics?

 

[Bradski]

You are missing the point. In order to even go looking for the right view, there has to be a prior understanding that there is a right view.

Someone who denies there is a right view won’t even begin inquiring after such a beast.

The first blazingly obvious point is that everyone believes that there is a right view. How could that not be the case, for heaven’s sake! Ask anyone on the planet a question about a moral problem and they will tell you that there is one course of action that is the best one to take.

The second point is that if you personally demand that there is right view, then it should be entirely reasonable to ask what that might be in any number of situations. Well, sez you, we use ‘theistic morality’ to discover that.

Cool, sez I. So that will result in us being able to find this elusive, ephemeral ‘right view’.

But what would you know…when we ask some simple questions, use some straightforward examples, test this ‘theistic morality’, we get different answers from different people. But isn’t this meant to enable us to reach the RIGHT ANSWER?

Of course it is. Except that people can use it differently depending on their (wait for it…) personal preferences. Everyone has an opinion. So what’s the problem?

Well, the problem is therefore that we don’t actually know what the right answer is. Everyone says they have it, everyone uses this special method for determining the truth, but what we find is that it is all smoke and mirrors. There is nothing there. It’s just meaningless words. Platitudes. Empty rhetoric.

 

[o_mlly]

Agreed.

Quite different from throwing someone overboard.

The “someone” is already in a precarious position because of circumstances (infected fallopian tube, locked inside a heavy crate, etc.,) and not because other moral agents put them into that position.

No so different a all. Everyone if the lifeboat is already in a precarious position just as are the all the sailors in the example. Cutting the ropes, the poor sailors attachment to the boat, is the same as throwing him overboard. Doing so saves the lives of many.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If there is no way of finding a diamond, how do you verify that it is there in the first place?

The problem with “no way of finding a diamond” is that it vastly overstates the issue. There are all kinds of diamonds being found and it is agreed by most people familiar with what diamonds are that they are, indeed, diamonds.

Now, what you are trying to do is make the case that because there is some disagreement about whether some diamonds can be confirmed as diamonds, THAT disagreement puts the very existence of things we call “diamonds” into question.

There are all kinds of moral rules that anyone serious about discussing morality will agree upon. It is wrong to rape, it is wrong to kill others without just cause, it is wrong to torture just for fun, etc., etc.

Most moral disagreements amount to refinements with whether this or that particular circumstance or reason does or does not justify an otherwise immoral act. Mostly it is fine tuning of morality. At that point there is no reason to toss out morality just because there happens to be disagreement about the finer points.

This would be true also about science – merely because scientists do not agree on the finer points of the theories proposed to explain what is observed does not nullify the entire enterprise of science. This is the point at which sleeves are rolled up and the real work begins. Ditto with morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Who says that they should?

BINGOOOOO.

Exactly the problem with the atheistic framework for morality.

There can not be any “shoulds”.

There can only be, “I really don’t like rape”.

Kind of like, “I really don’t like okra”.

It puts morality in the same arena as preferences.
Kind of a pathetic framework, eh?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The first blazingly obvious point is that everyone believes that there is a right view. How could that not be the case, for heaven’s sake! Ask anyone on the planet a question about a moral problem and they will tell you that there is one course of action that is the best one to take.

The second point is that if you personally demand that there is right view, then it should be entirely reasonable to ask what that might be in any number of situations. Well, sez you, we use ‘theistic morality’ to discover that.

Cool, sez I. So that will result in us being able to find this elusive, ephemeral ‘right view’.

But what would you know…when we ask some simple questions, use some straightforward examples, test this ‘theistic morality’, we get different answers from different people. But isn’t this meant to enable us to reach the RIGHT ANSWER?

Of course it is. Except that people can use it differently depending on their (wait for it…) personal preferences. Everyone has an opinion. So what’s the problem?

It is at this point that your argument falls apart.

No, individuals who seriously want moral answers do not resort to “personal preferences” and walk away from the entire discussion. What serious people do is look for the reasons why one view is better than another. Again, that is the time to roll up our sleeves and work out a proper solution to the problem. What we don’t do is shrug and proclaim, “That’s it then, there is no solution BECAUSE there is disagreement.”

Imagine the poor state of science if scientists had resorted to your “solution” several hundred years back.

Perhaps the prevalence of relativism in post-modern times – i.e., your recourse – has been responsible for human beings having been left in an impoverished moral state starving for proper answers to crucial questions. Imagine if a hundred years or so ago, relativism hadn’t had the sway it did and moral questions were treated seriously instead of given short shrift.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you. When push comes to shove, the strongest bully on the block with have his own way. The law of the jungle prevails. If I cannot, I will go underground and bide my time. Guerilla warfare is very effective. Don’t forget, there is no difference between a “freedom fighter” and a “terrorist”. If agree with the “cause” then your comrades are “freedom fighters”, if you disagree with them, then they are “terrorists”.

Yep. Again a very good description of what happens when there’s no theistic framework for morality.

What you have described above sounds like hell to me.

And it sounds like hell to you, too, I’m sure.

So you can see the cognitive dissonance we Believers have when we listen to you guys try to explain your moral framework.

How can a rational person embrace something which sounds so very much like torment?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, the problem is therefore that we don’t actually know what the right answer is. Everyone says they have it, everyone uses this special method for determining the truth, but what we find is that it is all smoke and mirrors. There is nothing there. It’s just meaningless words. Platitudes. Empty rhetoric.

Well, no, actually. It isn’t all “empty rhetoric.”

The problem arises when a wrong method is used to tease out the meaning.

Imagine a biologist searching for what it means to be an elephant by dissecting elephant bodies. There is no uncovering what an elephant is by killing it and carving it into smaller and smaller pieces in the hopes that the meaning of what an “elephant” is will somehow magically appear.

The problem with “objective” morality is that morality doesn’t deal with objects, but rather with beings who exist as subjects. In fact, being a subject may be an entirely different order of being, which means that how to treat other subjects qua subjects has nothing to do with objectifying them, but rather with personalizing them to the degree that is justly warranted. Perhaps it is the inability of each of us to properly BE a person that is what prevents seeing morality in its proper sphere.

If being a person is infinitely removed from being a mere object in the world, then how persons are to be treated is, likewise, infinitely removed from how objects are treated. This is why theistic morality provides the correct lens through which to view morality properly, unlike an atheistic view which reduces everything to mere biological objects and facts – the real life version of dissecting elephants to arrive at what elephants essentially are.

It may be true that as soon as you insert the knife into an elephant, you have essentially made it a reality that the creature formerly known as an elephant is no longer there. As you say, “There is nothing there.” “Elephant” has just been made a meaningless word by the very method employed to uncover the meaning. It has delivered, rather than revealed, “a platitude” and “empty rhetoric.” And the “special method” is precisely what made the elephant disappear into thin air like your smoke in a mirror.

 

[o_mlly]

This is where I was in the understanding of this problem some years ago, after which I noticed the trouble with it. Then after months of agonizing, I finally “got it.” I am preparing to write a paper, hopefully finally ending the craniotomy debate, that goes right into the issue that you are stressing over… “targetting” and all that.

The same kind of reasoning you are using can, when pushed to its extremes, be used to justify all kinds of evil. You’ve failed to grasp the demarcation of the moral object, which is a very common error.

Again, the classic case is with craniotomies. Can you crush the child’s skull, or not? After all, you don’t want to kill the child, you are just trying to reshape its head…

It’s about the object. This is where the confusion is, as usual. Throwing someone overboard selects them for death - which is wrong.

I would suggest you review again the definition of the moral object. The moral object of an act is the proximate end inherent in the act itself. The moral object is the immediate and direct effect of the act. The immediate and direct effect is intrinsic, that is, ordered to the act. The moral object of an act is not the end result (consequence) which by definition is not co-incident with the act but always subsequent and distant from the act itself.

The “demarcation” of the moral object does not extend beyond the immediate and direct effects of the act which always and everywhere occur regardless of actor, time or location.

The reasoning I use is the classical application of the double effect principles. Used properly, the principles do not lead one to justify evil acts. The moral object or immediate and direct effect of throwing one overboard is the person’s dislocation. This act is not intrinsically evil. If it were intrinsically evil, the act would be proscribed in all situations which it most clearly is not.

 

[o_mlly]

Allow me to tweak this - they all still directly effect the death of an innocent… with “directly effecting” serving here as a short definition for “moral object.” A direct intention would mean they actively are trying to kill someone, willing that the soul separates from the body.

It is so, so, so important to get down what an “object” is… Otherwise, you can always say “I was just moving the sword,” or “I was just moving my trigger finger,” or even “I was just sending electric impulses to my muscles,” etc. Double-effect, tah dah! Morality can entirely disappear along this line. …

.

I think you confuse a moral defense with a legal defense. The moral defense occurs in ones conscience before God who cannot deceive or be deceived. One’s intention is a known fact.

 

[inocente]

Let’s get a little clearer about why consequentialism isn’t a complete moral system.

One way might be to liken the moral/spiritual enterprise to being in a state of war.

The consequentialist would argue that “war” (i.e., morality) is merely about winning battles. The more battles won the better because then the war will end quicker.

The problem is that taking that position presumes a whole lot – not the least of which is to ignore the fact that one could win most of the battles but still lose the war overall. So strategy is more important than merely engaging in battles. Winning the important battles is more important than winning more of them.

Secondly, it ignores completely the question of whether you are on the right side of the war to begin with. You have to have a moral system to gauge whether or not the side you are on is the “good” side, so to speak. You might be fighting battles and making gains (i.e., bringing about “good” or “benefit” or “advantage” or “well-being”) but for the wrong side – in a sense, you would be doing “good” but for the evil side.

But even if you happen to be on the right side, it doesn’t mean that you, as a moral agent, are fulfilling what you need to do as a good moral agent. You could be on the right side, but be there for all of the wrong reasons.

Not only that, but I would suggest that as a moral agent, your first responsibility is to become right-ordered as a moral agent. As Christ said, “What good is it for a man to win the whole world (or, in this case, win the entire war) but lose his very self.”

As an inherently good moral agent, you would have the compass to determine which side is the good one and, hopefully, the capability and foresight to take in the entire moral landscape and determine which battles, strategically speaking, are the ones that need to be won.

This is why good works do not save us – the most important aspect of the moral and spiritual endeavor for each of us is not to win battles (do good works) necessarily, but to be transformed into the kind of being we ought to be. It is possible for an evil thing to do good works incidentally – for good things to come out of an evil man now and then, but if the sepulcher has been culled of dead men’s bones and exorcized of evil spirits, then out of a truly good man will flow good things in abundance.

Ergo, the endeavor of each of us should not merely be to do good things with resultant good consequences, but to BE truly good – to be the creatures we have been made to be by the perfect God – from the very core of our being. Not merely aspiring to become whited sepulchers that look “good” or do discernible “good” deeds in front of others or ourselves, but to be reborn and bring forth fruit that will last from the depth of Being itself.

I realize that this analogy may not be a comprehensible one for some, but I do think it highlights some of the key principles in terms of what morality is really all about. Life and death are placed before us as are good and evil. It is in the proper discernment of what life and death mean and what good and evil are that we can make the proper choices which will bring about the Summum Bonum, the highest good – not just for ourselves but for all, as it is intended to be.

I think your analogy cannot work because being on the right side in war requires that one of the sides is right and the other wrong. God must therefore be on one side, on the side of right. But in the Crusades, was God on the Christian or on the Muslim side?

There’s a third possibility, that God was on neither side. There’s also a third possibility with consequentialism - it’s neither good nor incomplete, it’s just bad. The reason is that it reduces morality to a numbers game, which in turn makes it give wrong answers. If the calculus gives rape and torture a high score then rape and torture are not just deemed moral but summum bonum, the highest good.

There’s a third possibility in the lifeboat dilemma too. Consequentialist ethics says throw someone overboard to lighten the boat, since saving maximum number of lives is all that counts. Categoricalist ethics says don’t throw anyone overboard, since doing so reduces that person to an object.

The third answer, from virtue ethics, is to leave it to the will of God. To have faith that God will save those on board (at the last minute a ship sails over the horizon) or has chosen this moment to bring them home. “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” - Matt 17

Interesting that’s not been mentioned as the right thing to do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But what would you know…when we ask some simple questions, use some straightforward examples, test this ‘theistic morality’, we get different answers from different people. But isn’t this meant to enable us to reach the RIGHT ANSWER?

Of course it is. Except that people can use it differently depending on their (wait for it…) personal preferences. Everyone has an opinion. So what’s the problem?

I think you are on to something more than you bargained for. You have captured something of the essential problem.

Morality does affect persons as subjects of experience, which means persons are probably the best determiners of what it is that does their existence justice. This means that no rule or standardized way of doing things will necessarily capture all the subtle nuances of being a person, subject of experiences and moral actor.

What that entails, however, is NOT that all persons can determine equally well what it is that is good for them. Some simply don’t have a clue and some are not even mildly interested in the question, preferring to “get while the gettin’s good.” So the solution isn’t to count everyone’s opinion equally, even if it is true that “Everyone has an opinion.” Some opinions are just awful and some couldn’t conjur an opinion if their life depended upon it.

It seems to me that the “opinion” of an all-knowing, all powerful and all-good person (AKA God) would, at least in principle, be the only real opinion that should count because only being all-knowing could possibly allow the consideration of all the relevant factors, being all-good would provide the proper grounds from which to treat those factors and being all-powerful the potential to bring about the fulfillment of all morally satisfactory results in the end.

Ergo, for true morality to have a hope of obtaining, the existence of God is absolutely crucial. Otherwise, what we are left with is the mere expression of opinion with no means or hope of ever completely fulfilling morally sufficient ends. And if there is no reason to think morality can succeed in the end, the impetus for living a moral life is undermined from the beginning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think your analogy cannot work because being on the right side in war requires that one of the sides is right and the other wrong. God must therefore be on one side, on the side of right. But in the Crusades, was God on the Christian or on the Muslim side?

There’s a third possibility, that God was on neither side.

Well, no, the analogy does work because the analogy is specifically to a particular war where there is a right side after all, just as there is right and wrong in reality.

Merely because there are wars that have no “right” side does not rule out that the moral life is specifically like a war where there is clearly a right and wrong side.

Now you may happen to believe there never can be a war with a right or wrong side, but then you might also believe there is no determinable good or evil in the world. If you do think this, then clearly you don’t subscribe to a Judeo-Christian view of the world where God lays before us the choice between life and death, good and evil.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Exactly the problem with the atheistic framework for morality.

I do not present an “atheistic” framework for morality. I merely say that “morality” is nothing more than a collection of preferences. What is “moral” or “immoral” simply does not matter. What is “legal” does matter - as long as it is actually enforced.

There can only be, “I really don’t like rape”.
Kind of like, “I really don’t like okra”.
It puts morality in the same arena as preferences.

We are already past that stage. No need to repeat it. Though I find it strange that you don’t see the difference between “rape” and “okra”. Each 'is own, I guess.

Kind of a pathetic framework, eh?

Do you have a better one, which is NOT based upon someone’s personal preferences? You said something about “canon” law which separates the “right” from the “wrong”. But that is nothing more than the collection of personal preferences of the people who wrote it… and it is NOT enforced either.

So why SHOULD anyone follow its “rules”?

Yep. Again a very good description of what happens when there’s no theistic framework for morality.
What you have described above sounds like hell to me.

Funny that now YOU appeal to YOUR personal preference.

And it sounds like hell to you, too, I’m sure.
So you can see the cognitive dissonance we Believers have when we listen to you guys try to explain your moral framework.
How can a rational person embrace something which sounds so very much like torment?

I simply described the objective reality. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant.

 

[e_c]

I think you confuse a moral defense with a legal defense. The moral defense occurs in ones conscience before God who cannot deceive or be deceived. One’s intention is a known fact.

And I think you continue to confuse “intention” with “object,” based on this response.

In the lifeboat example, I wonder if you can name the intention, object, and circumstance of throwing someone overboard…