Wednesday, October 7, 2009
AbbyNormative Ethics
Can there be a system of ethics without God? I've been curious about this question since I had a recent conversation with a professor who was a self-described secular humanist, and I couldn't understand what his view on right and wrong were. It really seemed as though he believed morals arose more or less out of cultural forces, much like any other natural phenomenon. But my view of things is simply different: I can't help but think, Well, are the naturally arising ethical systems right? I realize this question doesn't make sense if "right" only has to do with those evolving ethics. So, how do secular humanists arrive at ethics? There must be some goal, or central ideal (in my mind) to build upon, like love, or truth, perfection, technology, the ubermann,... something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You opened up a can of worms, Basil, and you know how I love worms. Seriously though, this is one of the central problems of secular humanism – its contradictory nature is made clear in its discussion of morality. Here’s a story that I always return to: I had a student at SHU who was a hardcore atheist. He and I were discussing life, religion, and morality in my office one afternoon, and this is what he said to me: “Modern atheism is by far the most realistic, least-superstitious, and probable theory. Now, all we need to do if figure out why people should do good and avoid bad. After that, the argument will be complete.” But isn’t this just the point? You don’t have a good/bad with secular humanism. Its very premise denies its existence.
ReplyDeleteThe basic reasoning is this: Without an objective source of measurement – God, love, existence, etc. – you don’t have an objective source of comparison. You can have subjective sources of comparison – such as culturally evolving morality – but there’s no reason or moral imperative for the individual: why should he follow these subjective measurements? He may impose his own subjective ethos.
Of course, this sort of argument doesn’t PROVE morality or God. [Not without further argument, such as “there must be a reason for our internal feelings of right/wrong, and this proves an objective standard.” But this argument is tentative and involves many more premises.]
So if you think atheism (or something like it) is correct, what choices do you have? Here’s a general outline of possible choices: 1) The Nietzschean. This man is convinced of the world’s amorality and chooses to impose his ethics on others. Life is about power and pleasure. I commend this person, at the very least for his logical consistency. Subjectivity means subjectivity, and this person recognizes that the true logical conclusion of the secular humanist’s argument. 2) The Cynical Professor. This person too recognizes the logical conclusion of his argument, but he chooses to “fit in with society” for one reason or another – perhaps he thinks he will be happiest in accepting the evolving morality of his specific culture. Perhaps he thinks this is the easiest road to contentment. But, as the title suggests, he is sarcastic about his own system of ethics and belief. 3) The Lover of Culture. This person understands the subjectivity of his position, but feels (for some reason I can never fathom) that he compelled to obey the dictates of the morality of his time, even after agreeing it has evolved. There’s less consistency in this way of life. 4) The Believer in the Human Person. This person accepts the subjectivity of morality, but somehow thinks that the dignity of human life is objective. On the one hand, I am annoyed by this obvious lack of consistency, but on the other hand, I am heartened by the respect for life (even though it often excludes the young). 5) The Agnostic. This person believes that most ethical rules are subjective, but that there are some objective mandates. He cannot prove why or how, but that doesn’t stop his belief. This isn’t technically logically inconsistent. What is problematic about this is the beliefs’ inability to convince people who disagree. So “killing for no reason” is one of these objective imperatives? What if I don’t agree? How can you convince me? You can’t. [I feel as if my students fall into this category. They WANT to point to certain things as objective, but they have no way back them up.]
6) The Secular Humanist. This is the category I dislike the most. These people accept the subjectivity of morality, but they blindly accept that their set of subjective ethical mandates NEED to apply to everyone: the equality of races and gender, human freedom, etc. They people are passionate in mocking religion and in fighting for the marginalized. Why should we care? Maybe because it makes us feel better; but that’s it. But these people march in their own worlds for causes they think divine. The problem is that nothing is divine, right, or moral if there is no Divine, Truth, or Morality.
My Prof's response via email:
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joe.
I'll avoid too deep a discussion of ethics at this point, mainly because it would be unethical of me to put off writing the pile of recommendations I have before me. I would suggest to "Jonas" that he builds his entire argument off the assumption (that has no proof whatsoever) that "God, love, existence, etc." are objective sources of comparison. On the contrary, as an historian I'd be hard pressed to find anything more subjective than religion. And any claims regarding the afterlife are, again from a secular perspective, just plain silly.
The good news, I suppose, is that I'm comfortable with the subjectivity of it all,including my own ethics. Again, as an
historian, I would be hard pressed to accept the notion that people who claim to be religious are any more or less ethical or "good" than those who are not. They tend to be better organized, however. And if
they went to good religious schools (as you did), tend to have well trained minds.
I'm with Dewey. It's all about intellectual growth, so that we can think beyond our own village and understand that we are all stuck on this little rock in space and need to get along.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBelow are my thoughts. I have categorized them, as is my wont: 1) a few clarifying points about objective and subjective standards of measurement; 2) the logical inconsistency of stating both of the following statements: “I'm comfortable with the subjectivity of it all, including my own ethics” and “we are all stuck on this little rock in space and need to get along;” 3) a few thoughts on the ethical standard of Love.
ReplyDelete1) Calling something an objective standard of measurement doesn’t mean it is correct or truthful; it simply means that you can measure other things/actions/ideas/etc. against it. When I say that Love/existence/God can be objective standards, I am not claiming them to be true. I am simply saying that we can measure other things against them.
Let me give an example: I could claim an objective, ethical standard that states, “Being a vegetarian is the only ethical path of eating.” Now, we can question this standard, and we should. However, in its own right, it is objective – not because it is “objectively true,” but because we can measure other things and ways of life against it. According to this standard, if a person is a vegetarian, they are making a morally correct decision, and if they eat meat, then they are making a morally incorrect decision. Objective in this sense doesn’t mean truthful; it simply means it’s a standard other things can be measured by.
2) Let’s view these two statements side by side: “I'm comfortable with the subjectivity of it all, including my own ethics” and “we are all stuck on this little rock in space and need to get along.” The first statement removes any possible meaning for the second. If all ethics are subjective, then why in the world would we try to get along? Why would I? I wouldn’t. But it doesn’t even matter is I would or wouldn’t: the problem with the second statement is that it claims that somehow “getting along” is good thing. But why is it good? If all ethics are subjective, then “getting along” is on the EXACT SAME LEVEL as “not getting along.” You cannot say that “there are no ethical imperatives,” and then in the next breath utter an ethical imperative, even if it is as weak and watered-down as “getting along.”
One more thought on this matter: This is the problem with secular humanism, at least in part with the way some people practice secular humanism. On the one hand, you tell me that religion is subjective, all ethics are subjective, etc (and there logically consistent arguments for these, even if they are limited). But the secular humanistic cannot then proceed to proclaim a good way of life. Remember, if all is subjective, Martin Luther King Jr. is as moral/good as Hitler. If you want to claim that one is better/worse than the other, you will need to appeal to SOME sort of standard of measurement. OK, I’ve beaten a dead horse for too long; it’s very dead now.
(continued in next post; for some reason, it won't let me post it all together)
(continued from last post)
ReplyDelete3) I won’t spend too much time here, for I don’t intend this to be an argument for why Christianity is in fact an objective standard of measurement. I simply want to quickly explore a thought Basil said in passing to me, that I think perceptive: Those that haven’t experienced the redeeming Love of the Creator may have a hard time understanding how Love can be an objective standard. For them, religious ethics come down to rules, and, yes, these rules seem to change over time. But it is only the cultural settings that change. Love remains constant. This isn’t an argument for why or how. It is simply a thought from one who has, at different points in his life, experienced this Love.
Let me make the final comment that this post was not intended to argue the objectivity of Christianity’s ethics. If anything close, it is simply a call to logic: Even if the Christian is wrong, at least he claims there is an objective measurement; so at least he has a logically consistent argument for why certain things are right and wrong, such as cold-blooded murder. Conversely, if the secular humanist is correct, then he has no claim, by his own argument, to why certain things are right and wrong; even cold-blooded murder is not any “wronger” than “not cold-blooded murder.”
Good response, sir, on all three points. makes me wonder why it is that thinking these questions through is important to some people and not to others. Is it sort of a parallel experience to "knowing" the love of God? Some people are just cool with holding logically contradictory ideas, like there's no objective morality, and you ought to love your neighbor.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought, my dear Basil of Baker Street. I don’t know if I’d draw any parallels to “knowing God’s love,” though. I think there are many, many people out there who struggle with these same problems. We all seek truth, and truth is logical and reasonable – of course, it goes BEYOND logical and reason, but it doesn’t contradict these.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of one of Nietzsche’s questions: “Why truth?” Nietzsche wondered why people felt led to seek and know truth. He didn’t see our “truth-seeking-ness” as inherent to humanity. But, of course, he was no secular humanist. His thought is consistent because he followed up his idea that we shouldn’t care about truth with a philosophy of the “will to power.” This philosophy is so powerfully superior to secular humanism’s “getting along together.”
I guess certain secular humanists, after accepting the subjectivity of morality and everything else, are OK with their conclusions not being logical consistent, because, well, everything is subjective – logic, too. That would be fine if their conclusion was a Nietzschean one; but the problem lies when they claim that there really ARE moral imperatives, like gender/racial equality, helping the poor, “getting along,” etc. as if some ways of life and actions are BETTER than others.
Interesting. though I kind of feel that Mr. professor here didnt really delve into very much. I kind of wish he explained himself more. Though from what he did say, I think Jonas's answer was more the enough.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the securlar humanist, at least talked about here, is more just taking history and almost giving up on finding any objective standard by which to measure morality. After so much recorded history, one i guess could analyze the state of humanity and determine that after so many apparent failed attempts at searching for an objective, accepted, and true stadard of ethics, there just doesnt seem to be one that we will ever know about. consequently, lets just ignore the giant elephant in the middle of the room,i.e. some unknown objective cause for us to act as moral agents, and just try to all get along with what we got, ie. our own subjective moral convictions (where they came from is ultimately unknown). Am I understanding this correctly? Maybe I'm biased here and still assuming an objective measure, but saing it's unknown...i dunno.
I think the sec. hum. would admit that many (perhaps all) cultures have supposed there to be some kind of objective morality. He would explain this as an evolutionary quirk. More caring people are alive because, in a twist on 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right', caring people were more likely to survive, and selfish people more likely to be ostracized from the pack and die. If not genetic, a social evolution (we learn what is 'right' like we learn customs and manners). To the sec. hum. this explains variation in moral codes among different cultures
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yoda’s reading of our history professor – at least it’s a valid reading. However, what I think you’re verbalizing is ethical-agnostics --- agnostics that believe in objective morality, but don’t necessarily think its objectivity lies in any religion or culture. However, our professor (like other secular humanists) proclaims his relativism. Therefore, he may act or say things as if he believes in some “unknown objective truth” (like “it’s better to get along than to not get along”); but his statement that “all is subjective” is in contradiction to this ethical-agnosticism.
ReplyDeleteSimply writing this out allowed me come to a thought: I think a lot of people act and formulate moral codes as if there truly were an objective truth out there, not found in ONE religious doctrine, though. However, to avoid any resemblance to religions, and because objective-morality is nigh impossible to prove logically without other assumptions, they claim they believe all is subjective.
Just a thought…
I also agree with Basil’s thoughts.