Our moral conundrum

 

Makes some people feel good! 

Is objective morality possible without a theist god? It seems that this is not the case. Which doesn´t necessarily mean that objective morality exists (or that God exists). I just don´t see how objective morality can be possible at all without God.

There are two “realist” positions within moral philosophy that argue otherwise. One is known as non-naturalistic moral realism. However, this position is simply theism with a non-theist mask. Perhaps we could call it shame-faced theism? Non-naturalistic moral realism must presumably argue that there are moral principles which are eternal, hyper-cosmic, exists independently of human minds, are nevertheless somehow connected to such minds and are known or communicated mind-wise. What does that sound like you to? Metaphysically, this position must hold that there is a non-material reality “above” the material one, where the moral principles are to be found. What does *that* sound like?

Of course it´s God. I suppose you could argue that on a narrow definition, it isn´t the god of theism, but “the Form of the Good” (Plato). Sure, but the non-material Form of the Good is arguably Plato´s god, the god of the philosophers (moral philosophers, perhaps). And how do humans get to know about the Form of the Good? Most humans don´t seem to know it, after all. So presumably there must be some kind of spiritual technique by which humans (or some humans?) can access the Forms “through the mind”. And such access can´t be strictly philosophical or intellectual, but must entail actually “feeling” or “living” the Forms. That is, really becoming a moral person. But isn´t this very, very close to a form of yoga, mysticism or revelation? Indeed, isn´t such a person a kind of prophet, seer and revelator? Once again, we come very close to the so-called Abrahamic religions (and Zoroastrianism). We´re only one step away from the Form itself telling us that it exists, what it means and what we should do about it…

I know that non-naturalistic moral realists sometimes deny the above. Indeed, the two most vociferous moral realists of this type I´ve come across on the web, both claimed to be atheists! But if you think it trough to the end, I don´t see how a non-naturalistic moral realist can remain an atheist. Once again: aren´t the eternal hyper-cosmic and yet strangely human-relevant and mind-accessed principles really the god of your system? And where do you suppose they originally came from in the first place? And how do you view theist religion? Mustn´t you see it as a kind of imperfect version of your own philosophy? The standard theists see through a glass darkly, but you presumably see…what? Form to form?

Some atheists have rejected non-naturalistic moral realism in favor of naturalistic ditto. Indeed, this seems to be the only possible position for an atheist who wants to believe in objective morality. The most likely candidate for a naturalistic moral principle would be some kind of common human nature. Perhaps there is a contradiction already here, since the mind-independent moral principle would be a fact of…our human mind. Or perhaps not, since I suppose “the mind” as in collective human nature would still be independent of each individual human´s puny little mind. Either way, this position doesn´t seem to work either. The entirety of our mind is a product of evolution. Yes, the things we call “good” come from evolution, but so do the things we call “evil”. Our common human nature is filled with both. So how do you choose between them?

The answer here seems to be, that humans are supposed to “flourish” if they chose the good. A person who chooses the evil in the belief that it will make him flourish is deluded or downright irrational. All rational humans will (of course!) chose the good.

But this is obviously wrong, and bespeaks of a naïve view of humans as “naturally good”, perhaps a product of the Enlightenment? There are many examples of people who flourish just fine while being evil. Jeffrey Epstein was a good example. Sure, he was eventually killed (or killed himself), but maybe that is just an acceptable part of the game? He flourished just fine for decades before that! And in an atheist universe, nobody lives forever anyway.

Both charity and genocide can be “good”. Charity is good in some situations. For instance, you can avoid conflict with neighboring tribes by being charitable towards them. However, you can *also* avoid such conflict by killing them! From an evolutionary perspective, the choice seems purely pragmatic. Please point to a period in human history without armed conflict! Indeed, “good” charity and “evil” genocide often go together. In order to more effectively kill people in a genocide, you need the genocidaires to be charitable towards each other. The Waffen-SS need to bond internally, the better to kill externally. In-group, out-group. Are you telling me a genocidaire can´t flourish? According to who? You and your fake psychological test?

There is another problem here, too. What exactly is the naturalistic moral realist “good” anyway? It seems to be subject to constant change…according to the prevailing secular or quasi-secular Zeitgeist. Is it the Victorian morality of the well-bred 19^th century British gentleman, the libertarian socialism of a rebellious Russian prince, pre-SJW American liberalism, or present-day American liberalism (complete with “trans rights” for children). Maybe tomorrow, it will embrace pedophilia, infanticide or massive scale euthanasia. So there doesn´t seem to be much of *objective* morality here…unless you believe, strange as it may seem, that evolution didn´t give humans the ability to divine (pun intended) their common and unchanging human nature. Curiously, we need an elite of Californian shrinks to tell us what make us “flourish”…

Without moral realism, there is only moral subjectivism. And the only way to make *that* stick seems to be to make it as similar as possible to naturalistic moral realism. Which doesn´t work either.

If God doesn´t exist, atheists better own up to it, rather than pretend that you can just continue as before with bits and pieces of Christian morality (the prevalent position, I presume, before 1968) or pretend that whatever is fashionable at the moment in the Bay Area college milieux is somehow a human universal. If God doesn´t exist, values such as solidarity and reciprocity within the in-group co-exist with brutal attacks against out-groups, both seen as perfectly “moral” things to do. (Ironically, the Bible is a good example of this, at least huge portions of the Old Testament.) That´s how we evolved, after all. And that´s that.

I don´t claim to have a solution to the above at the moment. But at least the question has been posed.