Can atheists be moral? (Richard Dawkins)
March 20th 2010 05:34
Someone sent me a link to a program called “God, Science and Sanity”. I'm assuming it was broadcast on the ABC in Australia. Or perhaps it was just an Internet broadcast?
Anyways, the program seems essentially to consist of questions from the audience directed to panellists. And on this occasion, one of the panellists was Richard Dawkins, who fielded the following: --
"HAMZAH QURESHI: My question is for Professor Dawkins. Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Absolute morality - the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath. These are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I'd almost say, intelligent design. Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in - if you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, 'Look at that. That's religion,' and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, 'Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that.' Well, of course we've grown out it. We've grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."
Dawkins is speaking off the cuff, under pressure, etc, etc. But I wonder if there's a sort of sleight of hand. I suspect that the questioner intends the word "absolute" in one way, and Dawkins, intentionally or unintentionally, takes it another.
It seems to me that the questioner is getting at the idea of objective morality. The idea that a moral claim can be true or false in the same way as an empirical claim.
Dawkins seems to be interpreting "absolute" more in connection with ideas like "having no reason" or "susceptible to no debate or argument", or perhaps "admitting no exception".
So can a moral claim, for atheists, be true or false like an empirical claim?
I think this is a very thorny issue. Here's just a couple of thoughts.
* When someone makes a moral claim, often they're assuming that they and their listener have a common ground. For instance, if one Christian said to another, "It's wrong to work on the Sabbath", and the matter actually came up for discussion, they could probably point to the Ten Commandments to settle the dispute.
So, in an everyday sort of sense, it's usually unproblematic to talk about "right" and "wrong" claims being true and false, because most of our language is context-based, bounded by parameters and assumptions, etc.
* But this wouldn't entirely have satisfied Dawkins's questioner. He presumably wanted something firmer, something deeper -- the grounding of morality, questions of language use aside.
* Can atheists be moral? -- Well, of course they can, if one is happy to use "moral" to refer generally to codes of conduct and rules. Almost all atheists have beliefs about what they should do and shouldn't. Even "egoism" can be considered a morality.
* Are atheists justified in their moral beliefs? -- Putting aside the retort "Are religious people justified in theirs?", the history of secular ethics is an attempt to find anything apart from God on which to base ethics. I've made a list elsewhere.
I think it's also worth mentioning that not all cultures try to base their morality entirely on the commands of deities. For instance, the Greek gods were frequently immoral in Greek eyes -- killing people out of passion, stealing things, cheating on each other, etc. So it wasn't purely to the gods and their behaviour that the Greeks looked for moral guidance.
* In my opinion, though, all of these secular attempts fail, and the questioner had a point.
One might applaud Dawkins's talk about basing morality on thinking and reasoning. But if one searches for ultimate foundation, behind all reasons, there might not be one coming.
The search for that sort of grounding might be as failed as the search for "I think, therefore I am" certainty.
* Is there a leap of faith for an atheist? -- I think there is, in the sense that there is a point beyond reasons do not go.
* But most people have particular things that they can't help but be committed to, if only the security of their own skin. -- We are born and indoctrinated with moral sensibilities and dispositions of action. -- Very few people can detach themselves from everything.
* So the picture of the world that I'm left with is the power play of countless different perspectives, jostling and competing for position, with no position outside the perspectives to declare any point of view "correct".
* This doesn't mean, though, that there might not be substantial agreement and interaction between perspectives. For example, whether you're a Kantian or a Utilitarian or a Buddhist, you might agree that a particular action is right or wrong, and certain consequences would follow from that agreement.
* But if all else fails, if there is no common ground to appeal to, and if a conclusion is necessary, then the only way to resolve disagreement is through force. For instance, physical force and violence (we lock up our sexual assault offenders instead of respecting their views on rape), or rhetoric and the force of emotions and words, or legal force (turning to a third-person, and consenting to their judgment), or democratic force (agreeing to abide by whatever people vote for).
One more thought...
Say there's an all-knowing Creator, and that Creator expresses desires -- "Do this", "Do not do that" -- and the reason for those desires is the well-being of the creatures concerned. Since the Creator has perfect knowledge, the Creator's desires and the creatures' well-being perfectly coincide.
If this were the case, there would still be a question "Why should you obey?". The answer might be "Because it's in your best interests" (thereby basing ethics on self-interest). But to the question "Why should you do what's in your best interests?", I'm not sure there's ultimately any real response.
There is a point beyond which reasons do not go, regardless of whether our reasons have a linear structure, or whether they circularly support one another.
Anyways, the program seems essentially to consist of questions from the audience directed to panellists. And on this occasion, one of the panellists was Richard Dawkins, who fielded the following: --
"HAMZAH QURESHI: My question is for Professor Dawkins. Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Absolute morality - the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath. These are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I'd almost say, intelligent design. Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in - if you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, 'Look at that. That's religion,' and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, 'Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that.' Well, of course we've grown out it. We've grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."
***
Dawkins is speaking off the cuff, under pressure, etc, etc. But I wonder if there's a sort of sleight of hand. I suspect that the questioner intends the word "absolute" in one way, and Dawkins, intentionally or unintentionally, takes it another.
It seems to me that the questioner is getting at the idea of objective morality. The idea that a moral claim can be true or false in the same way as an empirical claim.
Dawkins seems to be interpreting "absolute" more in connection with ideas like "having no reason" or "susceptible to no debate or argument", or perhaps "admitting no exception".
***
So can a moral claim, for atheists, be true or false like an empirical claim?
I think this is a very thorny issue. Here's just a couple of thoughts.
* When someone makes a moral claim, often they're assuming that they and their listener have a common ground. For instance, if one Christian said to another, "It's wrong to work on the Sabbath", and the matter actually came up for discussion, they could probably point to the Ten Commandments to settle the dispute.
So, in an everyday sort of sense, it's usually unproblematic to talk about "right" and "wrong" claims being true and false, because most of our language is context-based, bounded by parameters and assumptions, etc.
* But this wouldn't entirely have satisfied Dawkins's questioner. He presumably wanted something firmer, something deeper -- the grounding of morality, questions of language use aside.
* Can atheists be moral? -- Well, of course they can, if one is happy to use "moral" to refer generally to codes of conduct and rules. Almost all atheists have beliefs about what they should do and shouldn't. Even "egoism" can be considered a morality.
* Are atheists justified in their moral beliefs? -- Putting aside the retort "Are religious people justified in theirs?", the history of secular ethics is an attempt to find anything apart from God on which to base ethics. I've made a list elsewhere.
I think it's also worth mentioning that not all cultures try to base their morality entirely on the commands of deities. For instance, the Greek gods were frequently immoral in Greek eyes -- killing people out of passion, stealing things, cheating on each other, etc. So it wasn't purely to the gods and their behaviour that the Greeks looked for moral guidance.
* In my opinion, though, all of these secular attempts fail, and the questioner had a point.
One might applaud Dawkins's talk about basing morality on thinking and reasoning. But if one searches for ultimate foundation, behind all reasons, there might not be one coming.
The search for that sort of grounding might be as failed as the search for "I think, therefore I am" certainty.
***
* Is there a leap of faith for an atheist? -- I think there is, in the sense that there is a point beyond reasons do not go.
* But most people have particular things that they can't help but be committed to, if only the security of their own skin. -- We are born and indoctrinated with moral sensibilities and dispositions of action. -- Very few people can detach themselves from everything.
* So the picture of the world that I'm left with is the power play of countless different perspectives, jostling and competing for position, with no position outside the perspectives to declare any point of view "correct".
* This doesn't mean, though, that there might not be substantial agreement and interaction between perspectives. For example, whether you're a Kantian or a Utilitarian or a Buddhist, you might agree that a particular action is right or wrong, and certain consequences would follow from that agreement.
* But if all else fails, if there is no common ground to appeal to, and if a conclusion is necessary, then the only way to resolve disagreement is through force. For instance, physical force and violence (we lock up our sexual assault offenders instead of respecting their views on rape), or rhetoric and the force of emotions and words, or legal force (turning to a third-person, and consenting to their judgment), or democratic force (agreeing to abide by whatever people vote for).
***
One more thought...
Say there's an all-knowing Creator, and that Creator expresses desires -- "Do this", "Do not do that" -- and the reason for those desires is the well-being of the creatures concerned. Since the Creator has perfect knowledge, the Creator's desires and the creatures' well-being perfectly coincide.
If this were the case, there would still be a question "Why should you obey?". The answer might be "Because it's in your best interests" (thereby basing ethics on self-interest). But to the question "Why should you do what's in your best interests?", I'm not sure there's ultimately any real response.
There is a point beyond which reasons do not go, regardless of whether our reasons have a linear structure, or whether they circularly support one another.
| 133 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by signals
The Health Fanatic
The Natural Order
Media Piranha
Arrogant News
The Dope Chronicles
Just my two cents...
The person asking the question just believes in God. He/she may be a Jew, Muslim, Christian or ANY religion that believes in God. The question is absolutely absurd because all religions and their off-shoots have different beliefs in what constitute morals. Although they believe in God, the religions have different ways of worshiping God. Even within their ranks there is friction in their beliefs. Beliefs are what shape your morals.
It comes down to what we are taught and what is our influence in life that shapes our morals. It begins in the household and is later influenced by our peers, schools, community, etc.
To say that Atheists have no morals, absolute or otherwise, is only true if they are antisocial and has nothing to do with their beliefs-if you don't believe in God, that is your belief!
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
if you believe there is one perfect person for everyone, a soul mate that you must seek out, and only one person, a predetermined match, then you would consider all other relationships to be inferior, a perfect match is possible so all other matches are slightly off
this is the case with "absolute morals" and "relative morals"
absolute morals = Mr Right
relative morals = Mr Right Now
people that dont believe in Mr Right dont regard their partners as Mr Right Now, just their current partner
people that dont believe in absolute morals dont regard their morals as relative, just their current morals
what Dawkins is pointing out is that absolute morals are backwards, because they were defined in an era of our ancient history
biblical absolute morals did once line up with the relative morals of the day, that time occurred in the Bronze Age when we had practically no scientific understanding of anything
there is no absolute right and wrong, there is only "as right as possible considering all available knowledge"
if you make a decision today you make it as right as you know how to based on all your knowledge and experience, you may be asked to make the same decision again in 50 years and make a different choice, both decisions could be made with good will trying to do the right thing, yet produce different outcomes
a person doing something morally wrong today ie: a rapist, either doesnt fully understand what they are doing is wrong (look at frat boy stats from the usa admitting to date rape but considering it normal, expected, or welcomed), or they enjoy doing wrong things
the person who does not understand simply does not have access to all the information to base his decision on
in many cases people dont have all the best information because their belief in absolute morals causes them to be lazy and in some cases confused
the bible teaches rape is wrong because you are vandalising another mans property, it reinforces that women are objects to be owned, so a frat boy sees a "liberal" woman with no male "owner" and there is nothing morally stopping him from having his way with her
if he understood about consent, sexual diversity, and bodily autonomy, and had empathy with people outside his gender, and understood how the victim is affected by an assault, they wouldnt be doing it
i think absolute morals are the irrational leap of faith, to believe the morals from 6000 years ago are more relevant than today, essentially ignoring all of the knowledge we have gained since
there is no certainty about decisions you make today being "right" if there is no such thing as "absolute rightness", they are just the most functional and considerate choices given the information you had available to you at the time
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
In my opinion the questioner was referring to "rule-based" morality - empirical or absolute in that you could look at a situation and logically compute it according to the rules to come up with a right-or-wrong verdict. I think this is also what Dawkins had in mind as well.
If this is actually possible is another argument? We have rules in our society (laws) however they still need educated people to make rulings on the grey areas which would indicate that there is no such thing as a workable absolute morality for every situation even if you wanted it.
An argument for a rule-based morality would be that it's to some degree required for reasons of efficiency? We cannot have judges spending there time arguing each case from first principles -- it would be unworkable.
Also do most people need some kind of rule-based morality to function from day-to-day? The world is very complicated and we need simplifications of it just to get by and make decisions in a speedy manner -- as long as we are aware of the limitations of our rules/models and think about them in depth from time-to-time then that's probably the best we can do?
Perhaps the argument comes down to where the rules come from -- ancient text or consensus and debate.
Ancient text also needs analysis and debate to interpret so perhaps this provides just a starting point -- is it a bad starting point? Perhaps if taken too literally - or perhaps given that some people take the ancient text as infallible that the application of the resulting rules is too inflexible?
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
Dawkins was referring to a strict rules-based approach of applying morality.
However I think one probably implies the other? Something that was empirically measurable and considered infallible would have to be rules based and inflexible (without constant access to a on-the-spot decision making god), unless it used a very complicated set of rules?
As you point out the concept of absolute right or wrong would not actually be claimed in that sense by an athiest/humanist -- they would change the definition to mean "as agreed by consensus in society and judicial process" or something similar.
I think the questioners main point is based on a definition of right and wrong which Dawkins would probably not agree with.
Comment by ThreeWestWinds
Quoting Nietzsche on morality always makes me feel better, and in this particular case seems extremely relevant. This is what I read the questioner as having asked - without an unconditional "Thou shalt," an absolute morality, how can atheists have any morality at all?
That's all just restating the opening post, where Nonymouse said much the same, and asked the same question. While it may be a thorny issue, I also thing the answer is quite clear, and many atheists just haven't accepted it yet. Without a belief in something absolute outside the world to force consensus, any system is always open for debate. There can be no absolute morality without god.
Dawkins' response embodies quite well for my why this isn't actually a problem, as the questioner assumed it would be. "How can you have any absolutes without a first absolute to draw from?" I can't, and I like it better that way.
"Objections, evasions, cheerful mistrust, and love of mockery are indications of health: everything absolute belongs with pathology."
All Nietzsche quotes from Beyond Good and Evil
Comment by Samantha Elley
Food Journo
The Sandwich Shak
Vintage Foodie
Little House among the Canefields
Dawkins seemed to mention relative morals when talking of stoning for adultery. That was the reaction of that day. Today's relative reaction may be a pat on the back in some quarters, or even treating the guilty parties as social outcasts in others. Either way there is a basic acknowledgement that this is not an ideal or acceptable action in society. That is the basic moral.
In Aboriginal culture, a family member was allowed to perform justice against a guilty party who may have killed a relative. In western society they go to jail or get the death penalty depending on where we are. Either way the basic moral here is that murder is not good for all of society.
I think every human has a basic moral code within them that gets developed within their society whether it be based on a Judeo/Christian ethic (which I've been told from a legal source, western culture is built on) or by parents who simply taught right from wrong.
Comment by ThreeWestWinds
Now, what I've just said is somewhat in tension with the comment I made right above yours, where I acknowledge that there is no absolute basis for morality. But non-absolute is not quite the same thing as accepted without examination. All systems are not equally valid.
Your talk about basic morals sounds to me like a bit of intellectual slight of hand - I don't have to think about it, because my parents/society told me it was right, and I don't have to argue with your ideas, even if I disagree with them, because you have different parents/society.
Comment by Samantha Elley
Food Journo
The Sandwich Shak
Vintage Foodie
Little House among the Canefields
I DO believe that morals are handed down, but I also believe that they are questioned, which is why standards, punishments, rewards etc. change over time.
Like most things, they have to start somewhere and without any other proof, to me the basic morals start with the Ten Commandments, at least in western society.
That doesn't mean that athiests don't have morals (getting back to the original question) because society and experience tend to mould people in their beliefs of what is right and wrong.
I am curious to know where an athiest thinks their basic moral code comes from...which was probably what prompted the questioner to ask Dawkins what he did.
Take care,
Sam
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
I agree with threewestwinds that a world with no absolutes is more interesting. I also wonder if absolute morals are practical in reality even if there was a divinity to set them out. All rules will have shaded areas around all the black and white which are open to interpretation and argument. Without an involved divinity to come down and continually pass judgement on each situation it's not possible?
Comment by Samantha Elley
Food Journo
The Sandwich Shak
Vintage Foodie
Little House among the Canefields
(By the way, did you get my question about blogrolls??)
While a world with no absolutes may be more interesting, what is fact? From an athiests point of view, I mean.
Where did the idea come from that murder is not a good thing, or stealing is bad?
Conscience hasn't been mentioned yet, but surely it needs to be established in some form. Not everyone has a Jiminy Cricket...lol! And yet, I think, regardless of belief or lack thereof, we have a conscience.
Take care,
Sam
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i think the key word there is "faith"
if certainty (according to proof) could be expressed as a graph it would look like a reciprocal function where the limit of certainty approaches infinity as faith approaches zero, and vice versa
there is no certainty in life in theory, but at a certain point in practice i think the element of faith becomes so small it is negligible
humans have evolved to form social systems based on mutual altruism, we seek to advance the group to advance ourselves as individuals, so what we perceive to be "morals" is really a mental calculation based on trial and error, or knowledge of the history of trial and error, it is not exact, but we decide whether something is "right" by weighing up the factors according to previous results
i dont think there is a significant amount of faith in that process, its not like every decision is a coin toss with a 50/50 likelihood of success, we act according to what is proven so there is a high probability of making the "right" choice
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Assume that one walks into a jewelry store and sees, on a table, an unguarded and unwatched pile of diamonds. Surely, most rules of morality and ethical behavior would consider the grabbing of the jewels and dashing from the store to be wrong. (Forget for a moment the legal and penal consequences). Assume further that there is an armed guard watching over the gems. Is it a question of morality that would cause a person to not steal the diamonds -or is it the certainty that the guard would stop you and call the police?
Now, instead of the armed guard, one has the omniscient God watching over the premises. Now, rather than jail, embarrassment, whatever, one has eternal and everlasting damnation as a consequence.
While standards of what we call decency have evolved throughout history, there is one rule that I accept over all others: Do not gratuitously hurt another.
Everything else is commentary.
Comment by M B Andrews
But for a proper brush up on atheism and morality, I think we can do no better than immersing ourselves in some Sartre. I quote from Existential and Humanism (1945):
Dostoievsky said, "If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can’t start making excuses for himself.
Don't you love that bracing honesty?
It's a shame that Professor Dawkins doesn't have any such candour. He wants his inter-generational Anglican ethics, just without the need for any angels.
But it's a fudge isn't it? You can't go around saying slavery and the mistreatment of woman are absolutely wrong (which is what the Professor more or less claims) without calling on an absolute.
I think what is going on here is a desperate grab for respectability. The New Atheists don't want to be seen as immoral - it doesn't play well amongst the Bourgeois. But logically, Sartre was much closer to the fact of things. Free yourself of God as an absolute and you free yourself of morality as an absolute too.
Comment by Anonymous
As an atheist, I must firstly agree that there is no such thing as “absolute morality”. As Dawkins points out, this is not opinion, but an observed fact. Different religions and societies disagree as to what is morally acceptable, and Christanity (for example) has greatly modified it’s views over history as to what is morally acceptable. Hazmah is therefore correct in his assertion that there is not, strictly speaking, any such thing as absolute morality.
That brings us to the second part of Hazmah’s question. Is it an irrational leap of faith for atheists to decide between right or wrong? It is neither irrational, nor a leap of faith, for ANYONE to form a view as to what is right or wrong. Indeed, that is exactly what societies have always done, culminating in agreed rules and laws. Broadly speaking, reasoned discussion and consideration for the welfare of society as a whole, leads to conclusions such as stealing or rape are “wrong”, for example, and this reasoned discussion within society is the basis upon which our laws are made.
Our sense of what is right and wrong comes from three sources. Firstly, there is a genetic component, honed by evolution to maximise the survival of the individual. As Dawkins points out in his book “The Selfish Gene” our genetic programming is not a particularly likable source of morals, and can easily lead to selfishness that maximises the survival of the individual at the expense of society as a whole. Thus, we have the observed fact that people have the capacity to rape, murder and steal. In a stable society, our morals (fortunately) also come from what we are taught by our parents, that is, ideas, and principles are handed down from generation to generation. Thus we have the well know “nature versus nurture” debate, as to exactly how much of what we believe is genetically coded, and how much is learned. There is no precise answer to this question, suffice to say, both play a part. Finally, reasoned discussion involving the best interests of the society as a whole leads to new ideas about what is right and wrong, often taking into account changing circumstances. For example, in Spartan times, it was morally acceptable (arguably even necessary) for a percentage of the weaker babies to be deliberately left to die, whereas that would be completely unacceptable today. Thus, the ideas and morals that are passed on from generation to generation are not set in stone, but constantly changing, and always have.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
You've spoken of the way that reasoned discussion about what's good for society leads to various principles, and you've spoken of genetic instincts and tradition, and I think you're saying that no irrational leap of faith is needed when moral beliefs are derived from any of these sources.
Well, I think it depends on what one means by "rationality" and "faith". For instance, on one understanding rationality requires extra-rational premises to get going. Think of the way that maths proofs always start with "axioms" or givens that themselves are not the subject of proof.
Some people would claim that caring about what's good for society, or following a genetic impulse, or abiding by tradition are, if not irrational, then non-rational. Perhaps they are matters that one does not consciously think about at all, or perhaps, if one inquires as to their grounding, it will turn out that they're simply givens, simply axioms.
Comment by tiggyd
I just wanted to express my appreciation for your way of thinking in saying
If only more of us thought like that
Comment by ThreeWestWinds
I agree that thinking like that does a great deal to discourage... problems, but I also see it doing a great deal to discourage action.
Too often, I hear people using the lack of absolute right and wrong to excuse laziness. Just because we only have "as right as currently possible" doesn't mean we have to accept all ideas as equally valid. The "right for now" needs defenders as much as any absolute - more so, in fact.
Comment by tiggyd
Ah ofcourse! I wasn't thinking too far into implications of what Morgan said, it was just that I found that a nice thought to have in comparison the common prejudgemental black and white view of right and wrong that many people I know have. I say it from a psychological point of view mostly.
I agree with what you say though.
Comment by Notatheist
That is an excellent summary of what I was trying to convey – thank you Nonymous. BTW, my previous posting was under the name of Anonymous.
My impression is that Hamzah (see the very start of this thread) believes in absolute morality as dictated by a “God”, and for this reason alone he cannot entertain the possibility of people deciding for themselves how they should live their lives. My point is that people can and do make decisions about what they should and should not do, and always have, irrespective of religious belief.
I also have the impression that Hamzah is attempting to somehow justify the existence of a God. All I can say here, is that if religious proponents believe that a God is necessary to provide divine guidance for moral belief, then they should provide evidence for that viewpoint. IMHO, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I stated three means by which humans derive their moral beliefs, namely reasoned discussion, teaching from the previous generation(s), and genetic instincts. These are all factual mechanisms for which a vast amount of evidence and examples can be provided, and none of them require the existence of a God.
Nonymous has an apparent concern with whether the laws that our societies have evolved, and our own personal views on what is “right” and “wrong”, are “rational”. Let’s talk about that, though before doing so I can’t resist asking why any divinely sourced morals should be any more rational than those we derive ourselves. Less so, I would have thought, as this external being would logically or rationally tend to produce rules which were primarily to his advantage, rather than ours …
The word “rational” has little practical meaning, without reference to what one is trying to achieve in the first place. For example, if I need to travel from Sydney to Melbourne, is it rational to take a route through Hay, which would almost double the distance? If the stated aim was to minimise travelling time, then detouring through Hay would undoubtedly not be rational. However, if I wished to visit relatives in Hay on my way to Melbourne, then the route through Hay would be perfectly logical and rational.
The same is true of discussing whether laws and moral beliefs are “rational” – one must simultaneously state an objective. For example, broadly speaking, the objective of most laws and personal morals is to maximise the welfare of society as a whole. If you accept that objective, then it is not particularly difficult to logically and rationally formulate a set of laws and rules that society should adhere to in order to achieve this stated objective. Broadly speaking, that is what societies have always done, including “cherry picking” of the parts of the Bible that meet that objective, and shutting our eyes to the many outdated parts of the Bible that do not.
However, there is an unfortunate inconsistency between what is best for society as a whole, and what may be best for any given individual within society. For example, society as a whole is best served if we do not steal from others. However, provided that most people within a society follow the rules and do not steal, then from the point of view of an individual, stealing is very rational indeed, provided the offender manages not to be caught and punished. As evolutionary pressure operates on the genes within an individual, rather than on a society as a whole, then we should expect that our genetically programmed instinct has a component that encourages selfish behaviour such as stealing and rape, and this is certainly in accordance with our observations of actual behaviour within society.
So, why don’t we all just follow our instincts, and behave as selfishly as we can? Before answering that, it should be noted that under extreme life-and-death circumstances, such as in certain wartime or natural disaster situations, or even in situations where law and order has broken down but life is not directly threatened, that is exactly what tends to happen …. Yet over time societies have evolved to live in a more “civilised” manner, where rules, laws and morals are discussed, developed, and mainly followed. Why? Is this rational?
Consider a group of people shipwrecked on an island, where there is a very real chance that all could perish from starvation, exposure, animal attacks and so on. What is the most rational set of behavioural rules to maximise the chance of survival, both from an individual and group perspective? It seems likely that such a group would discuss their options, including behavioural rules. Some within the group would likely put forward the rational view that the best chance of survival for everyone, both at the individual and group level, would be to work cooperatively, not steal or murder, and so on. However, for this to work, everyone has to follow the rules, even though any given individual would be better served to break the rules for their own selfish benefit. In anticipation of this happening, it would likely be agreed (again completely rationally) that anyone breaking the agreed rules would be punished.
Even with all the above said, my own observation is that humans are largely non-rational by nature, and frequently driven by greed and emotions to the detriment of society as a whole. I think it would be wonderful to have a God which punished those who deliberately inflict suffering on others, but sadly there is no evidence that such a God exists, indeed, all experience is to the contrary. Thieves and rapists know perfectly well that they need not fear any God. Wishing that something was so does not make it so.
Some people would claim that caring about what's good for society, or following a genetic impulse, or abiding by tradition are, if not irrational, then non-rational. Perhaps they are matters that one does not consciously think about at all, or perhaps, if one inquires as to their grounding, it will turn out that they're simply givens, simply axioms.
I have talked a little about that, and given an example showing how rational thought can lead to sensible behavioral rules, and also pointed out that what is rational for an individual may not correspont to being rational for society as a whole. I agree that most debates must start with some kind of “axioms”, or at least on agreement of certain definitions and aims. I prefer not to use the term “givens” because that tends to imply that certain principles or beliefs are “given” by some agent external to mankind, which I totally reject. There may be fewer axioms than many would think. For example, many of the things that humans almost universally “feel” can be attributed to our genetic makeup, honed by millions of years of human experience, through the process of evolution.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Two thoughts:
-- I suspect that, in terms of moral impulses, there is a conflict not only between society and individual, but between one society and another society; and it might be the case that much of our inherited morality and genetic impulses is biased towards small-group goals at the expense of large-group goals.
For instance: how many people would significantly lower the standard of living of their own family in order to feed more starving children in Africa?
-- Secondly, you contrast a concern for social welfare with a desire to steal. But are there more problematic examples?
The idea that maximizing happiness is the fundamental moral principle (though I don't think you're exactly suggesting this) goes under the name of "Utilitarianism", and it has a long history of replies from people who are concerned with individual welfare and human rights. In particular, such replies are concerned with situations where an individual or a minority is sacrificed or treated unfairly in order to increase the welfare of society, the happiness of the many.
For instance: gang rape is apparently required by basic Utilitarianism, if the happiness the rapists derive from the experience outweighs the suffering experienced by the victim.
Another example might go: if the neighborhood is predominantly white, and, for no good reason other than their subjective racist happiness, the white people wish to eject a minority ethnic group from their community, should they be allowed to do so?
Three quick thoughts:
---- Should you accept that objective? If so, why should you?
---- Is it true that most moral behaviour is directed at maximizing society's welfare? The exceptions that come to mind include: (1) religious beliefs that aren't obviously to society's benefit -- not working on the Sabbath, not touching cows, avoiding pork; the motivation of these might be more a case of "to do what's right", regardless of whether or not society as a whole stands to benefit; (2) individual-oriented moral beliefs, for instance beliefs to do with rights.
---- Is it true that it's not hard to formulate laws if one accepts maximizing society's welfare as an objective?
-- Aren't there still long conversations to be had about how to define "welfare", how to quantify it, and what path best achieves it?
-- In most societies, as a fact, most murder and theft are illegal, and adultery and lying are frowned upon. But is it impossible to construct well-functioning societies where these are not illegal or frowned upon?
I guess the idea I'm exploring is that even if "maximize society's welfare" is your objective, and you do have a clear idea of what "welfare" is, still there's any number of ways to get there, and perhaps no laws necessarily follow from simply embracing the objective.
Comment by Roy Sablosky
This is profoundly dishonest. It is not really a question, but a vicious attack disguised as a question.
Dawkins could reasonably have responded to Qureshi: "This is not a question but a series of tendentious claims regarding something you call 'atheism'. Do you have a question that is actually a question? If not, let's move on to someone else." (What he did say was brilliant, however.)
Qureshi claims that we atheists cannot make valid moral judgements because we don't "have any sense of absolute morality". But there is no such thing as absolute morality. We know this with certainty, and the reason is quite simple. Moral questions have exclusively to do with the perceptions, preferences and proclivities of sentient beings. And "absolute" means independently of the perceptions, preferences and proclivities of human beings. Therefore, the phrase "absolute morality" makes no sense. It is a red herring; a MacGuffin; a lie.