The Moral Question (Part 1)

Here is the start of me putting my notes into course notes...This is part 1

In our present age the idea of morality has become an individual thing. People these days want freedom and liberty to express their own true image. This image representing their own personal choices, one that has not been imposed on them or is part of societies conditioning from the majority. Instead of holding the traditional view that morality is what we ought to do, it has evolved in to what we prefer or what we desire to do. The problem with this definition is that it confuses the question of what morality is? I will never forget a professor who once asked the question “What is the difference between some one who chooses their own morality and some one who has no morality?” The answer was “that there is no different as they both do what ever they want to do”. So is morality what we want to do or is it what we ought/should do? I mean is there anything that no one should ever do because it is just off the list as being objectively wrong.

These kinds of definitions is what drives society into the world of relativism where no one really knows where they stand with each other as everybody has there own morality. It used to be held that the majority of people had a moral sense that something’s were just wrong independent of whether some ones feelings disagreed with the ruling.
This makes us have to reflect on what is the justification for making these claims, where does one get the idea that something’s are just wrong or is that from just being conditioned by earlier generations opinions to think that some acts are objectively wrong.
Is the question of God’s existence relevant to the question of morality or can it be completely explained by a naturalistic theory. It is these questions that we will be looking at as we search for a foundation for morality. The first question we will look at is “Correct function and Reason”.

Correct Function and Reason

Have you ever asked your self “what is the good life”. What is a good person and what is the standard of goodness. Because the question is obviously very important, for how is one to guide their life morally if one has no idea of what goodness is.
What is a good person? The answer comes forth at once, A good person is one who performs efficiently or well the function of a human being. And this at once invites the further question “What is the function of a human being? Now this question is not asking what is the function of this or that person, but what is the function of a person, just as a human being might be. This is a difficult question to answer as if God is rejected then nature is left to explain reality and human nature by pure fate. If humans have not been created to function in a particular correct way then it is hard to know how a human should act. As humans can do many actions and desire many things, are all these free options because we are able to perform them or do some actions go against a moral norm.

If God is taken out of the picture, the idea of a person functioning correctly while avoiding other actions destroys any foundation of a designed morality. That humans are inherently good manifesting this designed character which seeks to express these moral standards is not an option.
Now if humans are not created for a correct function then it is nonsense to talk about people doing good and evil. It is also nonsense to say that humans are inherently good, as this implies they have been created good to act good, which implies they have been created according to a moral absolute standard that transcends them. If evolution is true then humans have no correct function and the idea of acting good is meaningless. All humans are, are machines who struggle over desires. If humans are not inherently good and created in the image of God with a moral law written on their hearts, reason driven by blind will has no hope in finding what goodness is in itself.
So if there is no created moral law in humans can we still understand right and wrong by using human reason. Can the power of rational thought tell us how we should act?

The Power of Reasoning

How is one to define what “good” is by using their faculties of reasoning. Plato some how thought that reason could some-how transcend into the eternal realm of forms and see the form of goodness. For Plato this was his reference point to know the good, but the problem was the form had no contents.
Can one see what is “good” by watching the empirical world of physical actions?

The Atheist Philosopher Richard Taylor says in his book “Good and Evil”,

“A thing is not seen to be good by the bodily eye, this was perfectly obvious to Plato, as it has been to all-moral rationalists. We can with our eyes see things, but we cannot in that way see that they are good. So it must be by our reason that we somehow apprehend goodness.”

But Taylor goes on to say,

“Reason by itself can make no distinction whatsoever between what is good and what is not. Reason can only and within limits see what is, and can never declare whether it ought to be so”

Taylor is correct in his thinking and it has become known today as the naturalistic fallacy. This is trying to look at nature which is a description of what “is’ and conclude an “ought” in the process. Looking at nature tells us what “is’ happening, but it doesn’t tell us what we “ought” or “ought not” to do. You can not get an “ought” from an “is”.

As John Frame says “One can not draw moral conclusions from non-moral acts”. The problem is that observing facts of nature of which we are a part of does not reveal to us moral facts. The attempt to derive moral principles from impersonal realities is also a violation of logic. Facts can be learned through observation and the scientific method. But moral obligations cannot be seen and heard. They cannot be observed. So all we are doing is labeling impersonal matter with abstract concepts and what is the relationship between the rational and the irrational, nothing! They don’t connect in any rational way. Without a “norm” our concepts are just subjective thoughts floating in our heads relating to nothing.

One may deduce moral conclusions from moral facts, but not from non-moral facts.

I quote another thinker who I think puts an end to this question of whether “reason” can justify being moral or is able to find what is good without God,

"Any reason for being moral must be either a moral or a nonmoral reason. If it is moral, then it cannot really be a reason for being moral, since you would have to be already inside morality in order to accept it. A nonmoral reason, on the other hand, cannot be a reason for being moral; morality requires a purity of motive, a basically moral intentionality, and that is destroyed by any nonmoral inducement. Hence there can be no reason for being moral, and morality presents itself as an unmediated demand, a categorical imperative."

It seems that if we reject that we have been created inherently good and that reason can not find a reference point for defining the good, goodness must be subjective.
If morality become subjective to personal tastes and preferences then we are left with any of these options,

Subjectivism; the subjectivity of goodness and badness.
Emotivism; the reduction of goodness and badness to emotion.
Positivism; the idea that man posits values with his will, invents goodness and badness.
Cultural relativism, or conventionalism, the relativity of goodness and badness.
Historicism; the relativity of goodness and badness to time.
Utilitarianism; the reduction of goodness to utility, or efficiency.
Instinctualism; the reduction of goodness to biological instinct.
Hedonism; the reduction of goodness to pleasure.
Egotism; the reduction of goodness to enlightened selfishness.
Pragmatism; the weakness of goodness and the power of badness.
Intuitionalsim; based on ones gut feelings.
Rationalism; reduction to reasoning upon ones own reasons for his desires

Are we restricted in having to make goodness a subjective entity. Is goodness just an empty word that means this is what I feel and want? The Atheist Richard Dawkins says,
“There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference”.

Why be Moral at All?

Another question must be asked, if morality is reduced to the subjective and reason has no way of defining what is right or wrong “Why should we be moral at all?” Some might think because without it we can’t gain anything from this world, as our environment would be too dangerous for us to seek our desires. So it pays to live in an agreed upon social contract so that we can gain more than if we didn’t. But why should we be concerned about this? If there is no purpose for us being here or no correct way to function why should we care about others or whether we live or die. Why not live the ethics of the survival of the fittest and wipe every body else off the planet. In the end there really is no reason why we should be moral or why we have an obligation to respect others.

Moral systems

Some atheist have tried to come up with moral systems that respects peoples different views, but still bind each other to a moral system of principles. Its like being a moral relativist, but bound by an absolute ethical principle. But these principles fail because there is no definition of what “goodness” is. Some atheists like to think that the golden rule from the Bible can be easily adopted without holding on to a belief in God or in an objective standard.

But I don’t think it is possible. The golden rule being “Do unto others, what you would have done unto you”.
Vox Day makes a good point in his book “The Irrational Atheist”

The problem is that Christianity’s morality is not just based on the golden rule, which states that man should not do to others what he would not have them do to him. It is based on doing the Fathers perfect (God’s) objective, absolute moral will. And this standard seems to promote the highest ethical blessing to all people. But just stating the above cannot provide us with a functional moral system.
Obviously a moral system based on loving the Lord your God and obediently submitting your will to his is a very different moral system and far more objective one than the Golden rule, which is not only entirely subjective, but incapable of accounting for either rational calculation or human psychopathy. It provides no moral basis to criticize a man for crawling into Adriana’s bed unannounced so long as he harbors no desire to bar her from doing the same to him, and sanctions a thief to steal on the grounds of a belief that he wouldn’t miss that which was stolen were the thief himself the prospective victim. The Golden rule is also to easily transformed into the idea of doing unto others as you believe they wish to do unto you.

Do what you want just as long as you don’t hurt anyone?

Have you every heard the saying which tries to establish an ethical foundation that “You can do what you want just as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” I used to think that this claim was pretty hard to fault until I looked at the deeper motivations of those who proclaim this ethical stance. The first question that has always jumped into my mind has been “How does one define hurt”. Is morality just based on what reactions happen with physical actions or is morality a little deeper. Is the “hurt” defined from the physical, emotional or motive or all three? And who defines here?

In our society today many hold on to the ethical system of relativism. That there is no absolute moral standard that exists for all people. For many if this did exist it would imply God’s existence. So ethical relativism with its claim that nothing is ultimately good or evil has tried to make a moral system that is livable in a community of people.
But the problem seems to be that every time a relativist tries to live as if they have absolute freedom they slip in some universal moral standards refuting there relativism.
For example, look at the universal, which is implied at the end of these claims,

“People can do what they want, just as long as they don’t hurt anyone.”
“You can do whatever you want, as long as its between two consenting adults”
“You can do whatever you want, as long as its in the privacy of your own home.”
“People can believe and do whatever they want, they should just be tolerant of others views.”

The problem with all these statements is that they start of giving every one absolute freedom, due to their relativism. But because relativism is unlivable they impose an absolute universal claim that every one must abide by, as if it was a universal moral claim independent of any one’s subjective views. We see again that when you try and tinkle with reality, you will be brought back to it. This is the same with rejecting God, try and deny him, you will affirm him. Let’s try this standard and see if it works,

“A man slips a drug in to a women’s drink and she falls a sleep (date rape). He takes precautions so that there are no consequences to his violating her. He does all this without hurting her or even without her knowing what has taken place. Hasn’t the man been able to do what he wants without harming the women. Is this act ok with us? While the man does not physical hurt the women or psychologically harm her because he is gone before she wakes up, we all know this is wrong!” We know that her universal rights which cant be grounded from relativism have been violated. Rape is universally wrong!

Another example, if we were to work in a mental ward with patients who have lost their minds, would we consider it ok to mock them even if they couldn’t understand or relate to reality. To most of us we know our words wouldn’t physical hurt them or mentally hurt them, but it would still be wrong to degrade some ones universal rights of dignity and worth. In our conscious we just seem to know that is wrong and mean.

Another example, you can do whatever you like, between two consenting people. So would we agree to having pedophiles play with your kids?

My last example is if absolute freedom is ok, can one commit suicide? They would not be hurting any body else, but they would be hurting themselves and their friends. I think bringing harm to us is just as bad. We are killing life and a person, ourselves.

Some may object to my claim that rape is universally wrong, but does not the human heart seem even if it can’t justify why, feel that something’s are just objectively wrong.

Would raping or torturing a six-week-old baby for fun ever be right?
Would setting people on fire and gassing them because of their race ever be right?
If there is no such thing as an inherent moral order shaped in us the concept of a moral conscience is an illusion. The acts of nature and the power of reason are just indifferent as Richard Dawkins says. There is no ontological value to any of the actions they are just different. Also if one were to hold to an evolutionary theory of life, rape would have been a normal act along the process of survival. In fact if we are just an evolved animal we are no different from the instincts of the lower animal kingdom.

Is morality even a free rational choice?

Another problem that a rises from a naturalistic explanation of all reality with the story of evolution is that the concept of freewill is an illusion. Do you control your brain or does your brain control you? And what shaped your brain before you become the conscious you? The problem of determinism and randomize has been a major problem for atheistic philosophers.
When one denies that man has a soul and is just part of this materialistic world of matter, that being random atoms colliding together by impersonal forces (The process of evolving by cause and effect mutations) freewill soon vanishes. The idea of responsibility also becomes an illusion and also does the concept of good and evil, right and wrong. One is left stuck in the impersonal, irrational void of chance.

Determinism
The naturalistic view sees human beings as part of the machinery of the universe. In such a world every event is caused by preceding events, which in turn were caused by still earlier events, ad infinitum. Since man is part of this causal chain, his actions are also determined by antecedent causes. Some of these causes are the environment and man's genetic make - up. These are so determinative of what man does that no one could rightly say that a given human action could have been performed otherwise than it in fact was performed. Thus, according to determinism, Bob's sitting on the brown chair rather than the blue sofa is not a free choice but is fully determined by previous factors.
A contemporary example of naturalistic determinism is B F Skinner, the author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity and About Behaviorism. Skinner believes that all human behavior is completely controlled by genetic and environmental factors. These factors do not rule out the fact that human beings make choices; however, they do rule out the possibility that human choices are free. For Skinner, all human choices are determined by antecedent physical causes. Hence, man is viewed as an instrumental cause of his behavior. He is like a knife in the hands of a butcher or a hammer in the grip of a carpenter; he does not originate action but is the instrument through which some other agent performs the action.
A philosophical argument often given for determinism can be stated as follows. All human behavior is either completely uncaused, selfcaused, or caused by something external. Now human behavior cannot be uncaused, for nothing can happen without a cause, nothing cannot cause something. Human behavior cannot be self - caused either, for each act would have to exist prior to itself to cause itself, which is impossible. Thus the only alternative is that all human behavior must be completely caused by something external. Naturalistic determinists maintain that such things as heredity and environment are the external causes, whereas theistic determinists believe that God is the external cause of all human behavior.
There are several problems with this argument. First, the argument misinterprets self determinism as teaching that human acts cause themselves. Self determinists, for example, do not believe that the plays in a football game cause themselves. Rather they maintain that the players execute the plays in a football game. Indeed it is the players that choose to play the game. Thus the cause of a football game being played is to be found within the players of the game. Self determinists would not deny that outside factors, such as heredity, environment, or God, had any influence. However, they would maintain that any one of the people involved in the game could have decided not to play if they had chosen to do so.
Second, the argument for determinisim is self defeating. A determinist must contend that both he and the nondeterminist are determined to believe what they believe. Yet the determinist attempts to convince the nondeterminist that determinism is true and thus ought to be believed. However, on the basis of pure determinism "ought" has no meaning. For "ought" means "could have and should have done otherwise." But this is impossible according to determinism. A way around this objection is for the determinist to argue that he was determined to say that one ought to accept his view. However, his opponent can respond by saying that he was determined to accept a contrary view. Thus determinism cannot eliminate an opposing position. This allows the possibility for a free will position.
Third, and finally, if naturalistic determinism were true, it would be self defeating, false, or be no view at all. For in order to determine whether determinism was true there would need to be a rational basis for thought, otherwise no one could know what was true or false. But naturalistic determinists believe that all thought is the product of nonrational causes, such as the environment, thus making all thought nonrational. On this basis no one could ever know if determinism were true or not. And if one argued that determinism was true, then the position would be self defeating, for a truth claim is being made to the effect that no truth claims can be made. Now if determinism is false, then it can be rationally rejected and other positions considered. But if it is neither true or false, then it is no view at all, since no claim to truth is being made. In either case, naturalistic determinism could not reasonably be held to be true.

Indeterminism
This view contends that human behavior is totally uncaused. There are no antecedent or simultaneous causes of man's actions. Hence, all of man's acts are uncaused; hence, any given human act could have been otherwise. Some indeterminists extend their view beyond human affairs to the entire universe. In support of the indeterminacy of all events Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is often invoked. This principle states that it is impossible to predict where a subatomic particle is and how fast it is moving at any given moment. Thus, it is argued, since subatomic events are inherently unpredictable, how much more so are complex human acts. From this they conclude that human and nonhuman events are uncaused. Two noted exponents of indeterminism are William James and Charles Peirce.
There are at least three problems with this view. First, Heisenberg's principle does not deal with causality but with predictability. Heisenberg maintained that the movement of subatomic particles was unpredictable and unmeasurable; he did not maintain that their movement was uncaused. Thus this principle cannot be used to support indeterminism. Second, indeterminism unreasonably denies the principle of causality, namely, that every event has a cause. Simply because one does not know what the cause is, is not proof that an event is not caused. Such lack of knowledge only reflects our ignorance. Third, indeterminism strips man of any responsible behavior. If human behavior is uncaused, then no one could be praised or blamed for anything he did. All human acts would be nonrational and nonmoral, thus no act could ever be a reasonable or responsible one.

Is value a property in matter?

The tittle of this section is asking the question “If all that exist is the world of physical matter (atoms and molecules in random motion), what then is value and instinct worth?” Does matter contain the property or quality, of value in it. I guess most people will answer no, value is a concept we give to something. I mean if all that exist is the material world of matter evolved from thousands of years for no objective reason, then all is matter. I can’t see why one piece of matter should have any more value than any other bit. Why should a human be more valuable than a tree if we are all part of the same thing? If things just have value because we vote that it does from conceptual changing views, how is this different than any other fantasy we invent. Do humans have a right to life, do they have instinct worth just because we think they do? Nature doesn’t seem to teach us this! If human are just evolved animals why cant we behavior like them?
Its important to answer these questions as the evils of the past will continue until people understand what humans are.

I would also add there is another problem with saying that concepts or thoughts are reducible to matter, atoms in motion. As thoughts and concepts are “of” or “about” things, which matter is not. And know one can find or see thoughts even if they could find a correspondence to brain patterns, they are different things. Another example is trying to work out how non-consciousness evolved into consciousness!

I would say that if humans have instinct value making them stand out from the rest of nature, then the human “form” must be imposed with intrinsic value. An eternal universal unchanging standard of value and worth that has been imposed into the form of “Personhood” which is seen in its fullness in it’s manifestation in the material body. Plato said “if matter has no form, it is meaningless matter”. I would agree with Plato and say that personhood has value and worth which is binding on all humans because we are made in the image of God. Therefore humans are valuable independent of peoples opinions.

Objective Morality

Any one who has spent some time at a University will have come across ethical discussion about Moral absolutes, Relativism and Postmodernism. For the rest of us relativism will be the ethical system that is the most held to in our society today, but not lived out very well. That’s because it is impossible to live it out when one person say’s what’s true for you is not true for me. But when that same person gets there wallet stolen they complain and want it back and cry it’s not fair, or just or right, implying by using those words that the other person is obligated to respond as they have they same morals.
Its one thing to think that we all make up our own ethical rights, but the truth is I believe we have awareness that there is objective morality. That being something’s are just right and wrong independent of people views on the matter.

The Philosopher William Lane Craig says,

“Every one of us guides his life, however inconsistently by a certain set of values. But are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right hand side of the road or mere expressions of personal preferences akin to having a taste for certain foods rather than others? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them and if so, what is their foundation? Are there things, which I ought not to do, and other things, which I ought to do? Or is the sense of obligation a mere illusion due to sociological and psychological conditioning.”

What is your foundation for the existence of your ethical reasons? Are they social conventions, personal preferences or objective binding values.
Lets just try a few examples, If we lived in Germany backed by science and a large amount of people, would we agree that it was right for Hitler is burn and torture millions because they were considered to be inferior races? If that society said yes, would you agree to it?
Is what the majority says always right? The law may say abortion is ok, but does that make it right? What about personal expressions would you agree if some old man loved young boys or animals to sleep with that it would be ok? That if some people enjoy raping people, or killing innocent lives it’s ok to. Or that torturing babies for fun is ok.
Most of us who are not demented seem to have some understanding that something’s just seem that they are wrong and have nothing to do with personal preferences. Would you agree that touring babies for fun or raping them was ok ever? I would hope your answer is no. Some may say that it just goes against common sense, but what is common sense. Common sense is an agreed upon opinion, unless you want to affirm that there is an absolute moral law on our hearts that knows right from wrong.
Now some people will say, but people can do what ever they like as long as they don’t hurt others but that’s not the case as I shown. It just seems that we have some inner standard that we all have deep down that we use to judge our acts and choices by. But what is this foundation? One cannot just reject all God talks because you don’t like the idea that a God could exist. That just shows that you hold an absolute bias before rational evidence is given.

So what do we mean by an Objective moral Value, well to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether any human being believes it to be so. That is if a bomb hit the world and all that was left were pedophiles or rapists would there actions still be objectively wrong? Similarly to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us independently of whether any human being believes them to be so.
For example to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still be wrong even if they brain washed every body else to think it was right.

My question is again “If you believe that objective morality exists, what is its foundation?" Is it to hard to think about, that we have to throw it on the too hard shelf? And walk back in to our contradictions of relativism. I don’t think so that’s why I push the challenge.

Ok, if God does not exist why do we think that every human being has objective moral value (human rights) Is this held from social conventions, human preferences?
As William Lane Craig says, On the naturalistic view, there’s nothing special about human beings. They’re just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called planet earth doomed to perish”
The Atheist Richard Dawkins say’s of human worth “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…We are machines for propagating DNA. From an atheist worldview to think that beings are special is to be guilty of specie-ism, an unjustified bias toward ones own species. From an evolution point of view all values are just by products of social biological evolution. Just adoption’s for survival. From an evolution point of view we have evolved by chance, all our thoughts and actions have been predetermined by prior causes, free-will is an illusion. In fact at times for the story of evolution rape and incest would have been the only options for survival and so also would have been killing off weaker inferior sick beings or animals. So how can we claim that there are objective morals? A naturalistic history of life does not seem to show the example.

Even if we could show that rape and incest and torture were not advantageous to us anymore, nothing from an atheist worldview can really say these acts are objectively wrong. Such behaviors go on all the time in the animal kingdom. From naturalism all our beliefs, not just our moral beliefs have been selected for survival, not for there truth-value.

Some Atheist philosophers try and say that objective moral properties just live in matter. But even if they did, there is no obligation why one must follow one or the other as they are there by chance and nature just “is’ there is no reason why we “ought” to have to follow on path and not the other. If nature is all there is we are free to have any of it and morality seems to be held in personal beings not impersonal matter.

If God does not exist why should we think that we have any moral obligations to do anything. Who or what imposes these moral duties upon us?
The question arises can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? Is all life just an illusion of beliefs that we hold without any justification. Maybe the inner sense that we feel that there are acts that are absolutely wrong are because we have a moral law written from God on our hearts. This law is one mind who has put his laws in our subjective minds and hearts. And it’s justification that it is objective stands because it is independent of what any human being believes. It is also objective and true because it stands also outside of every human being in the mind of God requiring our obligation to follow it. It is also objective as this standard is eternal and does not change. Much pain and suffering comes when we chose to deny this norm. Deny the norm, and objective right and wrong vanish, human right’s vanish, and human dignity vanish. If you hold on to any of these but reject God you are basically holding on to an illusion.

Therefore,
1.If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore God exist.