About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

[There’s been a lot of talk on several of the Blogs I frequent regarding atheists ethics – or rather their lack of ethics. I’ve even seen it stated that atheists cannot be ethical by definition. I felt that it was about time I addressed this nonsense. Fortunately the philosopher Julian Baggini has written an excellent rebuttal to the idea that ethics without God is impossible. I hope you find it enlightening.]

Atheist Ethics (Part 1)

By Julian Baggini

Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov may have said, Without God, anything is permitted', but I bet he never tried parking in central London on a Saturday afternoon. This article is all about the truths that lie behind this joke, concerning the authority of moral law and the idea that divine authority is required to uphold it. I will argue that Ivan Karamazov was either wrong or not talking about ethics. Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong. These conclusions run counter to much received wisdom, but the arguments that lead to them are reasonably clear and straightforward.

To begin with we need to consider why so many people think God is necessary for morality. One way in which this supposed necessity is expressed is that in order for there to be moral law there has to be some kind of lawgiver, and, ultimately, a judge. An analogy can be made with human law, which requires a legislature to make law - usually a parliament - and a judiciary to uphold it. Without these two institutions - both embodied in the moral case in God - law is impossible.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses two separate things - law and morality. Law certainly does require a legislature and judiciary. But the existence of both does not guarantee that the laws enacted and enforced will be just and good laws. One can have immoral laws as well as moral ones. What is required for just laws is for the legislature and judiciary to act within the confines of morality. Morality is thus separate from law. It is the basis upon which just laws are enacted and enforced; it is not constituted by the laws themselves.

Where then does this morality come from? It is tempting to say that moral law has its own lawgiver and judiciary. But the same questions that were asked about the law can be asked about the moral law: what is it that guarantees moral laws are indeed moral? It must be because the moral law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. But this then makes morality prior to any moral legislature or judiciary. To put it another way, the only thing that can show a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a moral standard which is independent of the moral lawgiver. So if the lawgiver is God, God's laws will only be moral if they conform to moral principles which are independent of God.

Plato made this point extremely clearly in a dialogue called Euthypryo, after which the following dilemma was named. Plato's protagonist Socrates posed the question, do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods choose it? If the first option is true, that shows that the good is independent of the gods (or in a monotheistic faith, God). Good just is good and that is precisely why a good God will always choose it. But if the second option is true, then that makes the very idea of what is good arbitrary. If it is God's choosing something alone that makes it good, then what is there to stop God choosing torture, for instance, and thus making it good? This is of course absurd, but the reason why it is absurd is that we believe that torture is wrong and that is why God would never choose it. To recognize this, however, is to recognize that we do not need God to determine right and wrong. Torture is not wrong just because God does not choose it.

19 comments:

Laura said...

I simply don't understand why some people insist on believing that morality must come from some external influence. I makes perfect these are the same people who believe that humans are inherently sinful creatures, and therefore must be guided into morality.

CyberKitten said...

laura said: I simply don't understand why some people insist on believing that morality must come from some external influence.

I have never understood how people can decide to go along with a Command Morality. If, for example, someone held a gun to my head and by that forced me to do something who could hold me responsible for my actions? Likewise if we follow Gods Laws on pain of his retribution - or even just because He is supposed to love us (though has a very strange way of showing it) and we are grateful enough to do His bidding - how can we be held responsible for our own actions? How can we be judged to be moral creatures if we rely on the Nuremberg Defence: That I was only following orders......?

OldLady Of The Hills said...

As I read your introduction I thought to myself...There is right and there is wrong and it has nothing to do with God...It is a moral compass...And if there were ever an argument against this idea that without God one cannot be ethical...Well, I would like all the so called believers in God to tell me how Torturing people for ANY reason, is ethical? Save Me From These People! I don't believe a truly ethical person could torture anyone....and God has nothing to do with it.

BTW: I saw your comment over at CQ's about how your parents couldn't afford a middle name...lol...Well, you could make one up?

United We Lay said...

I never understood why people think you have to be involved with religion to understand "Do unto others as you'd have done to you"

Sadie Lou said...

"I never understood why people think you have to be involved with religion to understand "Do unto others as you'd have done to you"

Yes. Exactly. All of us are capable of morality and making moral choices. Unbelievers and believers alike are constantly suprising me with their compassion towards their fellow man. Believers don't hold the license for being the most moral people on earth--the bible says "ALL have fallen short of the glory of God."
That doesn't mean that once you become a believer, your as glorious and righteous as the All Mighty.
I think the difference between believers and unbelievers, as far as morality goes, is the very fact that believers believe morality comes from God and unbelievers don't.

Laughing Boy said...

Baggini says morality (right and wrong) is separate from law. Law requires law-giver and judge, right and wrong doesn't. But if right and wrong are two categories, and actions can be classified as belonging to one or the other of those categories, doesn't that require a judgement? And what guides that judgement? I did not see where Bagini presented his argument for the separation of morality and law. Maybe that's in Part 2. Plato's Euthyphro doesn't serve his case very well. Nor does it present much of a problem for the Judeo-Christian concept of God, because it suffers from the same problem that afflicts many dilemmas; a third option. Of course we can't blame Plato for missing Option 3 since he would have had no awareness of Judeo-Christian philosophy in 400 B.C. I don't know what Mr. Baggini's excuse is.

Option 1: Divine Command Theory. God invents morality. He creates it just like He created all the other things. He could have made them differently, He could have made morality differently; what we have is an arbitrary expression of God's whimsy.

Option 2: God's commands are subject to higher moral principles. He can't be good unless he follows them. In this option he ceases to be God since he is not supreme, but subject to something greater.

Option 3: Morality is an expression of God's eternal and immutable nature. In terms familiar to any 4-year-old, God is good. This doesn't mean God exhibits good behavior, it means God and Good are equivalent concepts. If a thing is consistent with His character, it's good. If it's not, it's not. In this option morality is 1) not arbitrary since a perfect, holy, and unchangeable God could not have issued different commands, and 2) not superior to God, since it issues from His own nature.

CyberKitten said...

Naomi said: There is right and there is wrong and it has nothing to do with God...

Totally agree.

Naomi said: I saw your comment over at CQ's about how your parents couldn't afford a middle name...lol...Well, you could make one up?

Maybe I could.... [muses]. How about Alexander.... That's a good strong name [grin].

united said: I never understood why people think you have to be involved with religion to understand "Do unto others as you'd have done to you"

Indeed. The Golden Rule is older than Christianity and is a pretty good rule to live by.

sadie said: I think the difference between believers and unbelievers, as far as morality goes, is the very fact that believers believe morality comes from God and unbelievers don't.

Good comments. Sensible as always!

laughing boy said: Morality is an expression of God's eternal and immutable nature. In terms familiar to any 4-year-old, God is good. This doesn't mean God exhibits good behavior, it means God and Good are equivalent concepts.

I think that's addressed in Part 2....

Unknown said...

Pre-empting one of kitten's later posts - i saw A C Grayling lecture recently on this very topic and he very much made the nuremburg argument (though i think he called it something else) that if we are forced to be moral we are not intrisicaly moral, mearly acting in what has been defined to us as a moral way. his point was not that relegion can not provide a moral code but that wherever your code is drawn from you must follow it through your own commitment, judgement and free will or it is not a moral action in of itself.

The argument about where morality comes from if not from God is an interesting one, Kant suggested there was some universal moral code, which is patantley inaccurate as a theory, so we move to moral relativism, that the society you live in (and/or the relegion you follow - which is a reflection of the society you live in) sets a code and that code can not be taken to be absolute as it is based upon the conditions and needs of the society (and occupants) that formed it.

Plato makes an attempt to move us beyond the world and the fixed society and to think conceptually about what is a Virtue (Virtue being Aristotle's word that I thinks means Of Man or From Man and as such think about human action and motivation beyond and social structure.)

And that is where A C Grayling begins from...

CyberKitten said...

Thanks for that rca.... More from Grayling, Plato & others regarding these ideas later..

From some of my recent reading there seems to be two main schools of thought regarding ethical foundations - that they are either Rule based or Character based. As one who has never been a great follower of other peoples rules I instinctively gravitate towards the Character based idea hence my interest in the thoughts of the Ancient Greeks (of which more later).

Unknown said...

Happy to contribute rambling commentary on the topic any time :-)

Laughing Boy said...

His point was not that religion can not provide a moral code but that wherever your code is drawn from you must follow it through your own commitment, judgement and free will or it is not a moral action in of itself.

Coercion mitigates culpability. That's accepted. Does it mitigate it entirely? Seemingly not if Nuremburg was the test. I think there is general agreement that actions themselves are not the sole determining factor regarding morality. The will, or motives are what's crucial. A person can be forced to behave contrary to his will, but if he is not under physical restraint (including, to some degree, threat), he cannot help but act according to it. Thus, his free actions are indicative of his moral character.

It seems to me this idea about 'following through' has been distorted into the idea that consistent action in itself is what constitutes moral behavior. Whatever a person does is good as long as he is acting consistent with his own standard.

Kevin said...

I've just read Julian Baggini's "Atheism: a very short introduction" in which, among other things, he outlines this argument. It's the best summary of non-theistic ethics that I've read so far.

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...

Laughing Boy wrote:
Option 3: Morality is an expression of God's eternal and immutable nature.

Good point! But one can simply restate the Euthypryo dilemma in the following way: "is God good because to be good just is to be whatever God is; or is God good because God has all the properties of goodness?"

If you choose the first answer, then goodness is arbitrary; if you choose the second, then goodness is something that exists independently from God.

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: A person can be forced to behave contrary to his will, but if he is not under physical restraint (including, to some degree, threat), he cannot help but act according to it. Thus, his free actions are indicative of his moral character.

Indeed. But the question remains: Are Christians in particular capable of free (and therefore Moral) actions if those actions are made because they feel threatened by Gods possible response? Of course people can chose to disregard Gods rules knowing the consequences but are they likely to knowing how awful those consequences could be? Do we then only exercise our free will and become moral creatures when we *oppose* Gods instructions?

KP said: I've just read Julian Baggini's "Atheism: a very short introduction" in which, among other things, he outlines this argument. It's the best summary of non-theistic ethics that I've read so far.

It *is* a good little book isn't it? I reviewed it some time ago. I've been very impressed by the 'Very Short Introduction' series as a whole.

Laughing Boy said...

cyberkitten said...Are Christians in particular capable of free (and therefore Moral) actions if those actions are made because they feel threatened by Gods possible response?

In my previous response I paraphrased a section from the end of Romans 7. Romans 8 begins with, "There is, therefore, now no comdemnaton for those who are in Christ Jesus." So Christians are NOT threatened by God. They are compelled by the Holy Spirit to bring their lives into accordance with his character as exhibited by Jesus, but this is not under threat of eternal damnation if we fail (because we will).

cyberkitten said...Of course people can chose to disregard Gods rules knowing the consequences but are they likely to knowing how awful those consequences could be?

Again, you're misunderstanding Christian theology, so this question is moot.

cyberkitten said...Do we then only exercise our free will and become moral creatures when we *oppose* Gods instructions?

Since your premise is faulty, your conclusion is wrong, too.

Laughing Boy said...

Kevin Parry said..."is God good because to be good just is to be whatever God is...then goodness is arbitrary...

How so? Is God's character arbitrary? Could it just have easily been pure evil or a mix of good and evil? Not as far as I know. If this is the dilemma, then I pick #1 and deny that it's arbitrary.

The three options have distinct meanings. 1) God, with no basis to judge, picks, willy-nilly, certain things from all possible things to call good, 2) God is constrained to goodness by the Superior Notion of Goodness itself, 3) God is constrained to goodness by His own unchanging nature. No valid restatement could turn any of these options into another.

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: How so? Is God's character arbitrary? Could it just have easily been pure evil or a mix of good and evil? Not as far as I know. If this is the dilemma, then I pick #1 and deny that it's arbitrary.

So God is Good because he decides to be Good. Indeed He *must* be Good? Doesn't that mean that the Good & God are two separate things? That we can be Good without the need of God? That's the whole point of this section of the article - that Atheists can also be Good without reference to God.

Of your three stated options which do you hold to be True?

laughing boy said: So Christians are NOT threatened by God. They are compelled by the Holy Spirit to bring their lives into accordance with his character as exhibited by Jesus, but this is not under threat of eternal damnation if we fail (because we will).

So there are *no* sanctions for wrong doing? There are *no* consequences for wandering off the path? There is *no* retribution for turning our backs on God's Commandments?

laughing boy said: Again, you're misunderstanding Christian theology, so this question is moot.

All part of the learning process....

Laughing Boy said...

I will continue this in Part 2 thread.