A Twisted Moral Framework
This is a response to Answer Bearer’s post entitled “Moral Framework“, which is a response to Lisa’s post entitled “Unmuddling Morality“.
- If there is a moral law, then there is a Moral Law Giver.
- There is a moral law
- Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver
I agree with the logical structure and with premise #2. I disagree with premise #1 and, therefore, the conclusion. But first, let’s address the concept of subjective vs. objective morality.
There is a difference between agreement on specifics of right and wrong and a basic understanding that there is right and wrong. The specifics can be subjective at times; however, the framework is objective.
Agreed.
If morality was subjective to a culture or a person, one could say that the English slave trade or the American slavery was not wrong to those who didn’t believe it to be wrong. However, I think the reality is that it was always wrong even when people justified it to be right. Also, just because a community justifies something to be right, doesn’t mean deep in their souls they know it to be right.
Agreed.
If morality is subjective then we have no right to judge another culture or community for doing atrocities to people such as the holocaust. However, if it is objective and all people really do know right from wrong somehow then the Nuremburg Trials were warranted.
Agreed.
In my opinion, you have been arguing against a straw man. You seem to be assuming that, because we reject belief in a deity, we also reject the concept of universal, objective morality, or that if we do accept the idea of objective morality, we have no basis on which to do so. These are common (and tiresome) theist canards.
While it is certainly possible to be an atheist and reject the concept of objective morality (since atheism is simply a position on a single issue and is not, in and of itself, a philosophy or a worldview), most atheists, in my experience, subscribe to the framework of secular humanism to some degree or another and therefore tend to view morality as something that is objective and the product of logical reasoning. Lisa and I wholeheartedly embrace this position.
Given that we’re all in agreement that morality is not subjective or culturally-relative, let’s proceed.
The second part of the syllogism proclaims God must exist because there is a moral framework. How else could a standard of morality exist in humanity if it were not for a conscious designer placing it there? The objective nature of a moral standard that man kind experiences guilt when he breaks it and demands justice when it is broken against him is not explained by evolution.
Allow me to quote from the always-excellent Adam Marczyk: “[Atheism] can accommodate both the existence of a moral law and the manifest fact that not every culture or individual is aware of it. The explanation is straightforward: morality is not something implanted in every person’s heart by a creator, but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other.”
In other words, morality, which is objective, is discovered through careful reasoning, not by reading a primitive book or appealing to a magical sky fairy. Our evolved brains are more than capable of taking stock of situations, weighing the pros and cons of various courses of action, and anticipating (and empathizing with) the feelings of others.
Further commentary on this “Mere Christianity” argument can be found here. Further commentary on non-theistic morality is available here. Lisa linked to these essays in her post; I would strongly urge you to read them in their entireties before replying.
Again that is why I maintain that non-Christians must borrow from the Christian worldview regarding these things to even posit questions about good and evil and how to differentiate between the two. It’s the only worldview that gives a good explanation about how this all works and is the most viable in corresponding to reality.
As I’ve shown, this is false. The godless explanations I’ve presented are far more parsimonious and logically satisfying than the nebulous supernatural dreck proposed by theists of all stripes.
Regarding the Bible condoning slavery, it does not. Jesus didn’t come to force political change; that was not His mission. He knew that the heart change that happens from knowing Him would change the world and force would never produce love which was what was needed to treat people the way He designed them to be treated
Did you miss Lisa’s list of Biblical passages that condone slavery? Would you care to address them directly?
“When the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.” — J.M. Njoroge
When I said “mere Christianity” it was not to hide anything. I was only defining that when I said Christian worldview I was not addressing encompassing subcategories of the worldview, but foundational things. There is no need to move on to secondary things when the primary foundation is not established. Many atheist believe different secondary things, but they all believe there is no God. So that is where we need to start on both worldviews. The basics not the particulars. From the basics I am agreeable to moving into particulars, but it would not makes sense to move beyond the basics when our basic worldview is not agreed upon. I think that is why Lewis kept to the basics.
I am glad you and your wife think about what you believe and are willing and able to discuss it. There are many who do not think about it and just maintain a belief anyway (theist and atheist alike).
As for your link on the moral law — I see both your assertions and the person who wrote the article as flawed because I’m not advocating that morality comes from religion, but that it comes from God. This is an important distinction. For if it comes from religion, a person who grew up in a tribe in Africa with no contact with the outside world would have no morality. While they may do things that the majority of the world would not accept as moral they too have a conscious and an understanding of right and wrong even if the specifics are different.
How does evolution account for this knowledge? For guilt and the need for justice? You say it is discovered that it is moral to act a certain way by human reason. How can that be objective? How can that lead to guilt? How is one person to say that slavery is wrong by human reason and the other to say that it is right by human reason? They are then at an impasse. Or is there some standard beyond human reason that provides for slavery being wrong?
Please explain further how evolutionary progress provides a moral standard by which to judge good and evil?
Karla
20 Jun 08 at 9:26 am
Also with regard to a straw man argument. If I am misstating your position, I do so in ignorance. I am hopeful we can both come to a greater understanding of our respective worldviews through this dialog. I don’t wish to argue against something your not advocating.
Karla
20 Jun 08 at 1:24 pm
When I said “mere Christianity” it was not to hide anything.
What? Mere Christianity is the name of the book from which you have taken the Moral Law argument. Did I accuse you of trying to hide anything?
There is no need to move on to secondary things when the primary foundation is not established.
Hey, I’m just fisking what you have written — following your lead, in other words.
As for your link on the moral law — I see both your assertions and the person who wrote the article as flawed because I’m not advocating that morality comes from religion, but that it comes from God. This is an important distinction.
How is my reasoning, or Adam’s, flawed? Our point, in case you missed it, is that morality comes from rational deliberation performed by human minds, not from any theistic source (whether that be God, faith, religion, or any such concept you care to use).
How does evolution account for this knowledge? For guilt and the need for justice?
Evolution has programmed us with some basic instincts regarding cooperation and altruistic behavior, and it has also given us brains that are capable of processing complex abstract concepts such as cause and effect, feelings and empathy, rights, responsibilities and justice. It is from these tools that naturalistic evaluation of morality can proceed.
Again, please read and absorb the linked essays. They explain non-theistic morality in great depth.
You say it is discovered that it is moral to act a certain way by human reason. How can that be objective?
Why do you think it isn’t, or can’t be, objective? We have uncovered plenty of objective knowledge through human reason. This process is called ’science’.
How can that lead to guilt?
As I’ve explained, guilt is a feeling that results from knowing that one’s actions have caused harm to another — perfectly naturalistic, perfectly explainable by reason, no woo required.
How is one person to say that slavery is wrong by human reason and the other to say that it is right by human reason? They are then at an impasse. Or is there some standard beyond human reason that provides for slavery being wrong?
*headdesk* *headdesk*
Both proponents and opponents of human slavery have claimed that their position is morally superior. It is obviously impossible for both of them to be right. How do we decide? Do we appeal to a creator (and I’ll ignore, for a moment, the fact that your creator’s holy book blatantly condones slavery), or do we use human reason?
Under the latter paradigm, we can clearly judge slavery to be a moral evil: human beings have rights and feelings; slavery tramples on them and induces misery, and is therefore morally wrong. Where is the supposed impasse? The pro-slavery position is obviously wrong and illogical. This is so simple that I am struggling to figure out how I can express it any more clearly than I already have.
Kevin
21 Jun 08 at 2:16 am
Karla, it’s unclear how theism helps solve the philosophical problems that go with objective moral truths. After all, if you hold the extreme voluntarist view that moral truths entirely depend on God’s will, then you end up with unacceptable conclusions: that God has no good reasons backing up his commands (for that would require an independent standard), that if God commanded us to hate him or to torture baby animals then we’d be morally required to do just that, that God’s commands carry authority only because God commanded that his commands carry authority (which is plainly circular and absurd), and that the only reason God himself counts as good instead of bad is simply that he declared himself good (which is something even Satan could do).
These problems go back to the Euthyphro, and they seem to suggest that friends of moral objectivity shouldn’t think morality depends on God. Instead, they should think that objective moral truths are necessary truths that even God couldn’t change, like the truths of mathematics and logic.
Dave2
21 Jun 08 at 4:59 am
Kevin,
The article I read that you linked discussed that Lewis and those like him are hiding things about Christianity by insisting on starting with “mere Christianity”. I did use the term as term, I could have just as easily said basic Christianity.
You attribute a lot to evolution which is merely a term for a process of something complex coming from nothing. Which to me seems far more absurd than an all powerful all loving good God creating all that is as He has revealed himself as Creator and sustainer of all of creation to humanity since the beginning of time.
The law of entropy prevents order from coming out of chaos. So how do we get this order and complexity?
To quote G.K. Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
You say that we experience guilt when one’s actions hurt another. Why should we value anyone above ourselves? What causes that? How does evolution account for my caring for the welfare of anyone but myself?
Also, as a Christian I don’t believe I should be good because I’ll get in trouble with God if I don’t. That’s not the reason. “Good” actions come out of Christ transformation of my life not out of adherance to laws. It’s an extension of knowing Him, not an extension of worrying about judgment or rewards. (a blog on this topic will post on Monday).
The design of morality is a shadow of what its really all about. These principals of morality are in our design for our protection, but we often ignore them. We don’t do what we feel we ought to do and that is when we feel guilty. Why ought we do anything other than what we want to? Why this volitional battle? I don’t think evolution has the answers.
Karla
21 Jun 08 at 9:22 pm
Dave2, God is good so all He asks of us is good and for our good. He has revealed himself as good and has always been such. Check my blogspot on Monday for a blog about how God sees morality and what it all means for humanity.
Karla
21 Jun 08 at 9:27 pm
You attribute a lot to evolution which is merely a term for a process of something complex coming from nothing. Which to me seems far more absurd than [...]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
The law of entropy prevents order from coming out of chaos. So how do we get this order and complexity?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
To quote G.K. Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
G.K. Chesterton was, apparently, an idiot. Evolution does not say that “nothing should turn itself into everything”.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html
You say that we experience guilt when one’s actions hurt another. Why should we value anyone above ourselves? What causes that? How does evolution account for my caring for the welfare of anyone but myself?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html
For the last time — evolution has programmed us with many altruistic and social instincts, and the power of reasoning takes us from there.
Also, as a Christian I don’t believe I should be good because I’ll get in trouble with God if I don’t. That’s not the reason.
Good for you — now how about telling your less enlightened fellow Christians to stop threatening everyone with “turn or burn” scare tactics?
Kevin
21 Jun 08 at 11:49 pm
I do have further responses on my blogspot in answer to your wife’s first blog response to my first blog, if you are interested in continuing the discussion.
Karla
7 Jul 08 at 12:13 pm