Thursday, July 21, 2011

Reply To The Anonymous Atheist

Someone left a longer comment on the Atheists and Morality post so I thought I would reply in a post rather than having it get buried in an old comment thread. Unfortunately he didn't leave a name but here it goes.
Be careful. Proposing that morality is the result of evolution is not the same as proposing that morality is not objective. Evolution is not a random process, and neither is morality. If morality evolved, it was to help in the preservation and proliferation of a population.
But in this case where is morality located? It is in human DNA. So how can something in human DNA be objective? You could say it is objective because it would be common to almost all humans. But if humans did not exist then rightness or wrongness would not exist.
Morality must be systematic then, because a morality which impedes the preservation and proliferation of a population is rejected. If you look at it that way, then the "big contributor" to morality was the environment, or, if you wish, the universe. 
So suppose that is how we got human morality. How does that impact future moral analysis? We accept that morality has helped the human species get here. But who says the same moral principles will continue to be helpful? Maybe the path to progress is to do some things our morality recoils at. So even if genocide feels morally repugnant that does not mean we should not hold our noses and do it anyway. So anything becomes OK if you can call it progress.
You could say that, looking between different universes or environments, that the resulting differences prove a subjective morality. 
You could say it. It does not follow logically. All it proves is a subjective element. That is a subjective perception of an objective reality or perhaps some types of morality might be subjective and others might be objective. Morality in different times and cultures are more remarkable for their sameness then their difference. 
However, this would be forgetting that morality still was the result of the preservation and proliferation of a population. It doesn't get more complex when you look at it from the perspective of the individual. He or she wishes to preserve and proliferate his or herself, either genetically or ideologically. It's a psychological phenomena. 
Certainly this is a benefit of morality that could be explained by evolution. Moral people tend to raise more children and better children. But we also have the strong temptation toward immoral behavior. If evolution was the driver would not the superior behavior become automatic? We have the desire to do good yet the inability to do it. So we feel guilty. Where is the evolutionary advantage in that? If the greater good we desire does not exist it does seem had to understand how evolution could have programmed in such a destructive lie.
Of course, once the population is stabilized, we can look at other biological triggers to make up a system of morality. Our biology tells us to be as happy as we can for as long as we can while minimizing suffering as much as we can without sacrificing our individual or group preservation or proliferative abilities. No more rape, torture, etc. Summarizing: we evolve based on the environment; our morality results from our abilities to adapt to that environment; once adapted, we fulfill higher needs which have also been molded from the environment. Environment was there every step of the way, and it is the source of morality.
I am not sure where you are going here. If the population has stabilized then we are not seeing natural selection? Nobody has an issue with the body wanting to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. But what about higher moral principles? No torture or rape within the community you care about but what about outside it? If not, why not?

You talk about morality like it is an established fact. The truth is it is always a struggle. We struggle individually and we struggle as a society and as soon as we stop we commit evils we never dreamed we were capable of. Saying the environment shapes our morality seems to leave the will out of it. That is not human experience. We create a moral environment.
If you must ask the question, "If morality comes from Karma, where does Karma come from?" you are setting yourself up for infinite regress.
So you are saying don't ask that question? Interesting. I thought atheists were all about asking the hard questions. The infinite regress can be broken if there is an uncaused cause.  If you are saying Karma is not caused then you have such an uncased cause. If Karma is not it then does logic require one does exists? I am not afraid of that question.
In light of that realization, I've devised an interesting thought experiment for you. God is a simple construct, and the downfall of proposing that morality comes from such an entity is the result of God's simplicity. God is typically proposed to be omnipotent. What differs between individuals is their answer to the question, "Can God defy logic?" Can God, for example, make a three-sided square? If the answer is yes, then your God is beyond rational discussion. If the answer is no, then your God is bound by logic, as well. This would not prove that He is not omnipotent, but it would suggest that if He formulated morality, He had to reference logic, as well.
God cannot defy logic. He is Reason. He cannot go against Himself. He did formulate morality and He did so logically. It feels like you think there is some sort of problem here. Not sure what it would be.
It makes sense. If you're God, and wish to minimize suffering are you going to permit rape? No. Why? Because it causes suffering.
You already lost me. I would not agree that God wishes to minimize suffering. At least that is not His highest goal. He allows suffering for many reasons. You list a common one. He gives us the choice to rape or not to rape. But He leaves the suffering that flows from rape largely in place. Then He tells us not to rape. But the choice is still ours. The key is to realize He cannot take a negative consequence from a choice without also removing the positive consequence. That is if we could not choose to rape then we could not choose to respect a woman's right to say No. The choice would be made for us by God.
Now, you could propose that God could make an entirely new (bizarre) universe, where suffering did not result from rape. However, establishing the anti-rape moral code in this universe would not follow, because it would not functionally minimize suffering. It would be arbitrary.
I agree that this is bizarre.
God's decisions on morality are bound by the logic of the universe which He creates; and the previous commenters propose that morality comes from the logic inherent in the universe. How do we thank a God for a moral code which we could have derived ourselves from the use of our own logical abilities?
Just because morality is logical it does not follow that we don't need any help in knowing what is moral and doing what is moral. God's wisdom is higher than ours. So morality has no contradictions but it does have mysteries. Some parts are just too deep for us to fully understand. So God does help us out and we can and should be grateful.

The matter of following the moral code is obviously much harder. Knowing lying is wrong is relatively easy compared with being a truth teller. So we need God's help there to. Again, avoiding short term suffering is not God's central goal.
The former posters' arguments are sound. God isn't necessary for morality. 
Not sure which former poster you are agreeing with. My post was not trying to defend the proposition that God is necessary for morality. Just that objective morality requires some sort of super natural thing to exist. Morality that is purely natural is completely subjective and therefore not very effective.

7 comments:

  1. Before I address your entire post, I must ask you to clarify precisely what it is that God does for objective morality. You've said, "He did formulate morality and He did so logically." So God does not come up with arbitrary morals. The rules of logic are definite, specific, and objective. This means that humans can do logic just as well as God can; and if objective morality is constructed utilizing logic (and it is not arbitrary), then humans can construct morality. So what precisely is it that God contributes to objective morality? You allude to God "helping" understand the "mysteries" of objective morality, but I'd like to know the specifics. What has God contributed? How is it relevant to human behavior? Most of all, is all this understanding which God gives us something which we could never arrive at ourselves? And if it is something we could arrive at, why is God absolutely necessary for objective morality?

    Because in my analysis -- if objective morality is constructed logically -- God should be just as baffled as humans about those "mysteries" you're talking about. And if these mysteries were not arrived at logically, well... God must be just as impassioned about His perspective on morality as human individuals are.

    One final thing: What do you think morality is for?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, I am not saying God is needed. I am saying some sort of non-material existence is needed. That is morality needs to be discovered by man and not invented by man. That does not mean it is invented by God. That is the most obvious other option but not logically the only one.

    As far as the role God plays. He is the creator. He defines the essences and purposes of everything. What should be. He does so logically. But there are many logically consistent ways He could do it. Do we cannot deduce it without some revelation from God. We have the natural world. That is a kind of revelation. We can examine it and learn about God's intent. We can go a long way with just that. That is what we call natural law. When we don't assume any other revelation except what God provides in nature. But the more revelation we have the deeper we can know the truth about God and ourselves. So logic alone is not enough.

    We simply cannot do logic as well as God. We cannot do it well without God. Go back to the Thomas Merton quote in the original post. You can find it here:

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/appetites-and-intellects/

    Our logic constantly gets skewed by our passions. Morality is an area where that is particularly bad. So it not true that "humans can do logic just as well as God can." Humans cannot do it very well at all. If they could they would not only agree with God but they would agree with each other. They don't.

    What do I think morality is for? It is to teach us to function they way we were intended to function. We are told what it means to be fully human. We are invited to live that way. To love God and to love our neighbor. The love Jesus calls us to is a total gift of self. Natural law is not quite so demanding. Still living what we were created for but at a different level.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thomas Merton says a lot about intellect, but nothing on logic (which is different). Reasoning that logic is subjective is akin to sawing off a branch which you are sitting on. You can’t logically convince me that logic is subjective if it is subjective. Have you ever taken a course in logic? It's not something which is "skewed by passions." It is a process by which we argue and draw conclusions. All-or-nothing: you either engage in logic by following its rules and principles, or you are not engaging in logic. With that in mind, I will once again assert that we may engage in this process just as well as God can.

    Maybe there are revelations from God (unfortunately, you won't provide specifics) which give us some deep truths about ourselves and our intended functions. I do not see how they are relevant to the development from the ground-up of an objective system of morality. Remember that, to a materialist, these “higher” concepts are meaningless or subjective. You’re arguing that secular objective morality is missing something that religious objective morality has. If both are based on logic, then what –specifically– is this missing component?

    Maybe I need to elaborate on my question concerning what morality is for because I certainly would not define morality as being for “living what we were created for.” It has a chaotic circularity about it. It doesn’t make morality practical or useful. I’m looking for a purpose for morality. What you’ve given implies that morality is arbitrary; that we should just follow it because we were created to follow it. If that is what God wanted, he should have built computers. I’ve already given my answer to the question – morality is for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain without compromising preservation or proliferative abilities. I even have an ends for this practical purpose: for the satisfaction of life for as many people as possible while permitting these people the ability to arrive at their own meaning for existence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have taken a lot of courses in mathematics. I would agree that Math is not skewed by passions. I would not agree that we can do math as well as God can. We are limited by our intellect. God is not. So that is one issue.

    But once you take logic into the real world passions make a ton of difference. You look at something like St Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument for the existence of God. I would call that logic. David Hume comments on it. Elizabeth Anscombe comments on it. They both have biases. They arrive at different conclusions. Can you say objectively who is following the rules and principles of logic? I am not talking about just saying who you agree with and then asserting people who disagree with you are illogical. That is common enough. I am talking about something truly objective. If you want a place where trained philosophers are disagreeing about this try looking here:
    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html


    So either you limit the use of the word logic to only refer to those things that can be reasoned with mathematical rigor or you admit there is some subjectivity in logic. I don't think the first option is that practical. As much as I love math it is something most people are not attracted to and are not particularly good at. The less rigorous thing we call logic is much more widely used and applies to many more areas of life.


    Maybe there are revelations from God (unfortunately, you won't provide specifics) which give us some deep truths about ourselves and our intended functions. I do not see how they are relevant to the development from the ground-up of an objective system of morality. Remember that, to a materialist, these “higher” concepts are meaningless or subjective.

    I am confused here. To a materialist morality is purely subjective. If it wasn't it would be a non-material thing that existed. So you can arrive at a natural law from nature and logic but you need as a premise that there is some natural order you are trying to discover. That is something non-material. If you rule that out as an article of faith then you won't accept any attempt to discover it.

    I’ve already given my answer to the question – morality is for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain without compromising preservation or proliferative abilities. I even have an ends for this practical purpose: for the satisfaction of life for as many people as possible while permitting these people the ability to arrive at their own meaning for existence.

    This seems strange to me. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is not something we do on the basis of morals. Moral choices are precisely those we should not base on short term pain and pleasure. This sounds like consequentialism. Here is an article on that:

    http://www.intellectum.org/articles/issues/intellectum6/en/ITL06p005015_Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20consequentialist_David%20S%20%20Oderberg.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. Confucianism. Nothing supernatural there...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually Confucianism does involve a lot of elements that are not material yet they exist. Here is a summary from wikipedia:

    Humanity is core in Confucianism. A simple way to appreciate Confucian thought is to consider it as being based on varying levels of honesty, and a simple way to understand Confucian thought is to examine the world by using the logic of humanity. In practice, the elements of Confucianism accumulated over time. There is the classical Wuchang (五常) consisting of five elements: Ren (仁, Humanity), Yi (義, Righteousness), Li (禮, Ritual), Zhi (智, Knowledge), Xin (信, Integrity), and there is also the classical Sizi (四字) with four elements: Zhong (忠, Loyalty), Xiao (孝, Filial piety), Jie (節, Continency), Yi (義, Righteousness). There are still many other elements, such as Cheng (誠, honesty), Shu (恕, kindness and forgiveness), Lian (廉, honesty and cleanness), Chi (恥, shame, judge and sense of right and wrong), Yong (勇, bravery), Wen (溫, kind and gentle), Liang (良, good, kindhearted), Gong (恭, respectful, reverent), Jian(儉, frugal), Rang (讓, modestly, self-effacing). Among all elements, Ren (Humanity) and Yi (Righteousness) are fundamental. Sometimes morality is interpreted as the phantom of Humanity and Righteousness

    These elements are something man has discovered not something man has invented. So it is objective morality but it is not something a materialist can embrace without ceasing to be a materialist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Certainly this is a benefit of morality that could be explained by evolution. Moral people tend to raise more children and better children. But we also have the strong temptation toward immoral behavior. If evolution was the driver would not the superior behavior become automatic? We have the desire to do good yet the inability to do it. So we feel guilty. Where is the evolutionary advantage in that? If the greater good we desire does not exist it does seem had to understand how evolution could have programmed in such a destructive lie.

    Because there are multiple goods at work.

    Humans benefit from their society. They are able to produce more long term viable offspring in a functioning society. Societies work best when everyone sacrifices for the society. Individuals that are selfish (anti-social) however often benefit from that selfishness in particular they are able to produce more long term viable offspring than others in their society.

    Acts of selfishness on the part of one person causes others to respond. This causes society to not work as well. Thus biologically what you want are individuals that act selfishly up to the point that it starts to create societal harm particularly for them. That is people who act selfishly but do so rarely. People who search for optimal opportunities, the greatest benefit with the least risk of being punished.

    What that looks like on the emotional level is a person that is sorely tempted towards evil, but mostly does good (guilt). The law is the first teacher morality is a Catholic aphorism that is correct.

    ReplyDelete