You are hereThe Problem of Morality - Where Does It Come From?
The Problem of Morality - Where Does It Come From?
In the atheism verses God debate, one thorny issue always remains for the atheist — how does the atheist define morality (right and wrong)? Without absolute standards, where does right and wrong come from? Consider the atheist’s favorite spokesman Richard Dawkins speaking on the question of morality.
“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. “We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.” He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.
At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else?
I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”
“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”
How do you obtain moral standards?
- Human thinking by changing times (zeitgeist).
- Outside human thought, i.e. God.
Atheists may think of morality as coming from instinct, majority of opinion, situationally up to each person, and so on, but as Dawkins admits any and all of those are subject to change. Thus it’s up to each individual to determine morality, and as Dawkins notes, by that logic who can say Hitler was wrong in exterminating six million Jews? No absolutes exist, so everything is moral … and immoral at the same time.
This does not imply atheists can’t be good people — they certainly can be. But it does mean they have no absolute standard for morality, and ultimately moral actions come down to situational ethics — what’s moral today could be immoral tomorrow, and vice versa — morality needs an absolute standard or it varies as each person or majority decide morality for themselves or the group. But in either case morality shifts.
Dawkins’ idea even suggesting Hitler could have been right displays the absurdity of the atheist position. Without an absolute moral compass, anything can be considered moral at one point, and not at another. In Dawkins’ atheist reality, it’s possible for Hitler’s actions to be correct, now or in the future. In other words, morals are not absolute at any time — the perfect storm of situational ethics.
Naturally, Dawkins’ suggestion about Hitler likely repulses most (all?) people, but while many atheists might attempt verbal twister to avoid the conclusion, Dawkins gets credit for not denying the logical conclusion of his atheist position and the lack of standard morality it spawns.
Why this position doesn’t bother him remains troubling.
This is a common argument
This is a common argument leveled at atheists. I think looking at this logically you can see that it does not hold water. It does not follow logically that just because there is no absolute moral standard with atheism, that is a reason that God must exist to provide one.
For example you state “…morality needs an absolute standard or it varies as each person or majority decide morality for themselves or the group.”. Why does it need it? From your perspective it might be desirable, but that does not mean such a thing exists or is true.
That what is considered to be moral does vary over time and place is self evident from the history books and our own experience of other cultures today. It is also seems clear that there is no absolute moral position that all people or even all christians recognise. The closest I have seen quoted for such a list is the 10 Commandements from a Christian perspective. Unfortunately many of these do not really address what we would call moral issues today and the others are just what any community needs to get alone and survive (don’t kill, don’t steal etc).
We need to take responsibility for our own moral & social condition, with both old and new challenges, and help steer the “moral zeitgeist” as best we can with careful and considered thought, rather than abdicating the responsibilty to a bronze age tribes views on the matter from approximately 2500 years ago.
It does not follow logically
It has nothing to do with proving God exists. And I’m glad you noticed atheists have no absolute moral standard — that’s the entire point. It’s a moral free-for-all.
Because without an absolute standard right and wrong varies as each person or majority decide morality for themselves or the group. Nothing can be called wrong.
As Dawkins pointed out, who can say a mass-murderer is wrong? Popular opinion? What happens when that popular opinion wants to exterminate a race? Who can say that’s wrong? Nobody, by Dawkins admission.
What you get is moral relativism and situational ethics. So what happens when someone thinks it’s OK to steal your car? Who are you to say that’s wrong? The person who wants to liberate your car says it’s fine by his morality — who are you to say it’s wrong?
Dawkins makes the point quite well with his use of saying nobody (in the atheist realm) can say Hitler was wrong. With an absolute standard of right and wrong, it’s quite easy to say Hitler was wrong.
That’s just popular opinion, value relativism, and situational ethics where what’s right today is wrong tomorrow, and wrong today could be right tomorrow, which as Dawkins eloquently noted, means who can say anything is wrong, which includes dictators exterminating people?
Are you comfortable with moral relativism and situational ethics where right and wrong change?
You state "...I’m glad you
You state “…I’m glad you noticed atheists have no absolute moral standard — that’s the entire point. It’s a moral free-for-all.”
Clearly this is wrong as there are many countries around the world with hundreds of millions of people living and working in relatively sucessful communities, many non-christian, that do not follow or adhere to any notitonal set of absolute moral standards derived from Christian scripture.
However, Christians continue to insist that there is an absolute moral standard despite the fact there has been no consensus on what this might be over the past 2000 years.
You state “That’s just popular opinion, value relativism, and situational ethics where what’s right today is wrong tomorrow, and wrong today could be right tomorrow, and wrong today could be right tomorrow…”
Yes, this is true, I don’t deny it, history proves it both within christian and non-christian cultures. The classic example is slavery, once accepted and even seen (justified) as a moral duty to the slaves by some(we are doing them a favour by enslaving them), to the current view as the evil thing that it is. Could this position reverse? Possibly yes, but we have made moral progress and it seems highly unlikely that this would happen now thank goodness. This is what I think Dawkins means by the “moral zeitgeist”
Where do our morals come from then you ask? As implied above we can derive them by understanding the human condition and through experience we can identify dehaviours that maximise human potential, happiness and peaceful coexistance. It is in our interest to encourage such things as only then do we flourish in our communities. After all, we are social animals, this is well recognised and understood.
We can use these principles then to guide us in driving our law making, social engineering, cultural expression and education to name but a few. Each generation building on that of the previous.
Even so the trajectory is not always in one direction. Yes its true things can and do go bad, but having an absolute moral standard does not guard against that, for its not the standards or principals that make this happen, its how individuals and societies interpret them. Another example of this is the Inquisition. People clearly thought they were being moral when infact they were being immoral absolute moral standard or not. Thus whatever moral guidance we follow its always comes down to interpretation.
I do beleive however that an analysis of western culture since the enlightenment would show a perhaps slow, but steady moevement towards improving the human condition.
You asked “Are you comfortable with moral relativism and situational ethics where right and wrong change?”
Wether I am happy with it or not is irrelevant as its all we have until someone presents clear and reasnobale evidence to the contrary. Until then its down to all of us to make sure the communities we are in, big or small continue to maximise human well-being, freedom and happiness.
Theres a famous saying which sums this up “Evil flourishes when good men do nothing” (Edmund Burke I think?)
You're mixing the existence
You’re mixing the existence of moral standards with the application by people of that moral standard.
Something in culture could be viewed as right, and later wrong — consensus does not mean anything in regards to right/wrong and true/false. Consensus existed on piltdown man and a flat earth (consensus being a dialectic thought process where standards are determined by group-think. Also the Argumentum ad populum fallacy). But of course, all along the earth was still round — consensus is a lousy way to determine truth and falsity.
We both agree with Dawkins atheism has no moral standards — only shifting morals by culture and popular opinion. That’s the point, not how society chooses to apply morals.
I dont think I am mixing
I dont think I am mixing existence and application with all due respect. My argument stems from the fact that there is no absolute standard and how a society/community might then derive moral principles and then apply them.
Please state where this absolute moral standard is documented and agreed on by all (christians?) so I can understand how we might be able to clearly and unambiguously measure against it?
Regarding, concensus yes, letting the general public determine the truth or falsity on an objective matter such as how our world works is a lousy idea. However, that is not how it is done these days. Today we can examine the way the world works through the lens of the scientific process and rely on the experience and knowledge of scientists in a given field to determine the best scientific understanding at any given time of hows things are.
Unfortunately, when it comes to human emotions, well-being, happiness and moral frameworks science is less helpful. It might be able to inform us on aspects of these questions, and maybe overtime its role will increase as we better understand the way the human brain works, but for the moment we are still reliant on the thinking and concensus of the society we live in to determine the moral “truth” of that society. Its just another way of stating moral relavitism.
At the end of the day you are just asserting that the only way you can make sense of the moral maze is if there is an absolute moral standard to measure against, but are not providing any evidence to support your position and stating that any other option is absurd, because it must be. Sometimes things are just the way they are, regardless of how we would like them to be different.
My argument stems from the
That’s your opinion, an opinion shared by Dawkins.
It’s a result of your previous opinion rejecting absolute morality. If no absolutes exist, then application by society becomes definition — the shifting zeitgeist. If absolute morality exists existence and application can (but don’t have to) differ.
Since you assume no absolute morality, it’s understandable to mix application and definition, because application becomes definition.
Making sense of morality has nothing to do with the existence of morality. A sociopath who doesn’t understand why murder is wrong doesn’t change murder is wrong.
But if you assume no absolutes exist whatever makes sense is moral, by definition — it’s the shifting zeitgeist again.