About Me

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

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Atheist Ethics (Part 4)

By Julian Baggini

So far I have argued that religion and morality are separate, and that even if you still think God is the main source of moral guidance, that does not mean you can avoid making choices about which moral principles to adopt for yourself. We need to go further, however, if we are to make a persuasive case that atheist morality is possible. It is not enough to show that religion cannot be the source of morality: we need to show what can be. It is not enough to show that we have to make moral choices for ourselves: we need to show that such choices carry moral weight.

When it comes to saying what the source of morality is, however, there are no easy answers. The difficulty can be seen by considering the strangeness of the question, "Why should I be moral?' This question can have two kinds of answer. One could provide a non-moral answer. For instance, one might say you ought to be moral because you will happier if you are or God will punish you if you are not. These are what we can call prudential reasons to be moral. The trouble is that sincerely believing in these reasons appears to undermine morality rather than support it. Acting morally, because it is one's own best interest to do so does not seem to be acting morally at all. Morality is about acting in the best interests of others and oneself.

However, if we give a moral answer to the question, such as "be moral because that's what you ought to do', we encounter the problem of circularity in our justification. Since the question is about why we ought to be moral at all, we cannot help ourselves to a moral reason as part of the answer, since that would beg the question. We can only offer a moral reason for action if we are already persuaded of the merits of morality. So we face a dilemma. If we want to know why we should be moral, our answer will either beg the question (if it offers a moral reason) or will undermine the morality of morality (if it offers a non-moral one). This is not just a problem for atheists. The same logic holds for everyone. The reasons to obey a God-given morality will either themselves be moral or non-moral, and thus the same problem is faced by the religious believer.

The existence of this problem is not an argument against morality, however. It is merely a caution against the expectation that one can hope to find a simple source for morality, a reason to be moral that every rational person should recognize. I would argue that such a source cannot be found. The best attempt to find such a source is the Kantian endeavour to show that acting morally is required by rationality, which we will look at shortly. But despite their inventiveness and ingenuity, such attempts do not, I think, ultimately succeed. What then can we put in place of such a source? I believe that at the very root of morality is a kind of empathy or concern for the welfare of others, a recognition that their welfare also counts. This is, for most of us, a basic human instinct. Total indifference to the welfare of others is not normal human behaviour, it is symptomatic of what we would normally call mental illness. Its most extreme form is that of the psychopath, who has no sense of the inner life of others at all. This recognition of the value of others is not a logical premise but a psychological one. If we accept it, then we have the starting point for all the thinking and reasoning about ethics that helps us to make better decisions and become better people. But the truth of the premise, the fundamental conviction that others do count, is not something that can be demonstrated by logic. This is part of what Hume was getting at when he said 'reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions'. Moral reasoning can only get going if we have a basic altruistic impulse to begin with.

I should briefly mention an alternative view, which is that we should just accept that the reasons to be moral are themselves non-moral. Morality, on this view, is a kind of enlightened self-interest. Recognizing this does undermine the romantic view that morality is about a lack of self-interest, but some argue it need not completely undermine morality. Giving money to charity, for example, is no less moral because it is done out of enlightened self-interest. What matters is that we act well. It need not matter that the ultimate justifications for so doing are selfish. I am not persuaded by this because it does seem to me to be an indispensable part of ethics that self-interest is not sovereign. At best, the view of morality as enlightened self-interest gives us reasons not to engage in antisocial behaviour or to do things that benefit us in the short run but have greater long-term costs. But that is not morality. Morality always contains the possibility of requiring one to act against one's own interests. If I am never prepared to sacrifice some self-interest, then I do not think I can ever be truly moral.

[I certainly agree with Baggini that there is no objective basis for morality but I’m not sure that a ‘natural feeling of empathy’ is enough to base morality on alone. I do, however, feel that empathy is a component of morality – maybe even an important one – but isn’t enough in itself to explain it. I’m also not convinced at Baggini’s dismissal of self-interest (enlightened or otherwise) as at least another component of morality. I may act in a moral fashion because it is indeed in my own best interests to do so. I don’t think that this would totally invalidate the moral nature of that action. Action against our self-interest may be more moral in this sense but again such actions are only part of what we think of as morality. I believe that to seek a single foundation for such a complex phenomenon is mistaken.]

2 comments:

Jeff said...

I've enjoyed reading your posts on morality and its possible derivation.

The widely-held belief that morality flows from a divine creator leads many people to the wholly incorrect belief that non-believers have no moral code (or at least not generally the same code as everyone else). I've seen survey results that show in a variety of ways how atheists are not trusted by theists - eg: an overwhelming majority of Americans would not vote for a confessed atheist; atheists have been identified as America's most distrusted minority; and atheists are the sort of mates that parents would most disapprove of. On top of that, the slur 'godless' is used to describe anyone deemed to deserve our utmost loathing.

It takes almost no effort to observe that there is really no lack of a sense of morality among atheists, yet a large percentage of the population operates under this false belief.

I think that this erroneous belief is what non-theists most need to combat. There is little hope of forcing the religious to see the error of their ways and give up their fantasy beliefs, but getting them to trust atheists would seem to be something that can be done, and this could go a long way toward improving the lot of all manner of non-theists. Well, maybe trust is a lot to ask, but at least not being afraid of or intolerant of atheists would be a good start.

CyberKitten said...

jeffy said: I've enjoyed reading your posts on morality and its possible derivation.

Thanks. The debates have been interesting.

jeffy said: The widely-held belief that morality flows from a divine creator leads many people to the wholly incorrect belief that non-believers have no moral code.

Very true. Just because we don't follow a theistic code doesn't mean we have no code at all. That is plainly obvious (or at least should be).

jeffy said: It takes almost no effort to observe that there is really no lack of a sense of morality among atheists, yet a large percentage of the population operates under this false belief.

Well, there are a *lot* of false beliefs out there!

jeffy said: There is little hope of forcing the religious to see the error of their ways and give up their fantasy beliefs, but getting them to trust atheists would seem to be something that can be done, and this could go a long way toward improving the lot of all manner of non-theists.

Indeed. Religions of all types are going to be with us for generations to come. Having a bit of tolerence and a live & let live attitude would be a good position to adopt. That doesn't mean people should get a free ride though!

jeffy said: Well, maybe trust is a lot to ask, but at least not being afraid of or intolerant of atheists would be a good start.

Seems to work over here... [grin].