Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Morality and God: Phrasing the Relationship

I am altering my agenda slightly to handle a pair of alternative phrasings to the relationship between god and morality mentioned by members of the studio audience.

They concern the claim I defended that the question of whether morality is founded on God is not an important question - at least when it comes to questions of what is actually right or wrong.

I compared the question of the foundation of morality to the question of the origin of life when handling questions about the properties or a tree. The person who believes that life evolved and the person who believes that life was created can continue to disagree, but their disagreement has no relevance to the height, mass, and chemical composition of the tree. Similarly, the person who believes that morality is an emergent property of matter and the person who believes that moral value was assigned to things by a deity can continue to disagree, but their disagreement has no relevance to the wrongness of rape.

One of the two alternative phrasings brought up in discussion holds that the relationship between god and morality is important because, without God morality is subjective. Without god, one person's opinion is no better than any other. God is the only way for moral value to be objective.

There are actually two claims embedded in this assertion.

The first of these claims says that without a god, moral claims must be subjective - merely a matter of opinion.

However, this is no more true then the claim that, without a god, statements about the height, mass, and age of the tree must be subjective - that one opinion is as good as any other.

Note that to raise this objection I do not need to actually demonstrate that morality is, in fact, objective in the same way that statements about the height, mass, and age of trees are objective. I only need to demonstrate the possibility of a type of claim that can be objective even while denying the existence of a god. If somebody were to claim, "Either the sky is clear, or it is snowing," I do not need to prove that it is actually raining to prove that it their claim is false. I only need to demonstrate that there is an option other than, "clear skies" and "snow". There is the option other than "objective from god" or "subjective". Claims about the height, mass, and age of a tree are examples of this class of statements.

At this point, one might say that the relationship between god and trees/morality is important because without god there would be no trees/morality. However, this is precisely the claim we do not need to agree on to share knowledge about the height, mass, and age of a tree or the wrongness of rape.

This leads to the claim that moral statements are a different type of claim than claims about the height, mass, and age of a tree. With this claim, it is granted that we can know the height, mass, and age of the tree without referencing a god. However, we cannot know about the wrongness of rape without reference to a god.

Here is where I apply the question, "Can a person experience pain without reference to a god?" When I talk about the experience of pain I am including in this the idea that it is something awful - something the person has reason to avoid - something that directs him to act so as to avoid pain.

Clearly, it is the case that a person making no reference to god can hold that certain arrangements of matter and energy are to be avoided, and be motivated to act in ways to avoid those arrangements, without making any reference to god. In avoiding those particular arrangements of matter, they have reason to set up social institutions that will make those arrangements worth avoiding less likely. This not only includes arrangements of matter identified as "being in pain", but those that would be identified as "being murdered", "being raped", "being ripped off", "being lied to", "being enslaved", "being hungry", "being sick". It also includes having reason to prevent these things from happening to those one has an emotional attachment to, and creating a social culture filled with people who are not only adverse to doing these things, but are willing to act so as to prevent these things from happening to themselves and others.

None of this requires a reference to any type of deity.

One can believe that, without a god pain would not exist - that the horribleness of pain (or rape) was put in it be a god. However, that horribleness is there. To the person in pain, it does not really matter if its horribleness was put there by a loving deity or it is an emergent property of nature. None of that changes how badly it hurts or the motivating reasons the agent has to avoid it - and to set up institutions that will make "being in pain" less likely.

These alternative phrasings ultimately reduce to the types of phrases I have already examined. "God is necessary for trees/morality to exist" is the "unimportant question" - the claim we need not accept or reject to know the height of a tree or the wrongness of rape.

"A reference to god is necessary in order to recognize a qualitative difference between different arrangements of matter and energy" is simply false - as the capacity to feel pain - and the capacity to know which social institutions will make the experience of pain less likely - proves to be false.

6 comments:

downtown dave said...

It's no easy task straddling the fence, is it? http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Dave, are you serious? This is brilliance. I now know how to correct the apppolgists that think morals need a god. They don't.

I used to say that social creatures developed "morals", (really just ways to get along), but this is why we have developed those traits.

Monkeys, Gorilla's, Deer, and Humans all do what is best for the herd.

Bob.

Maverick Christian said...

The first of these claims says that without a god, moral claims must be subjective - merely a matter of opinion….I only need to demonstrate the possibility of a type of claim that can be objective even while denying the existence of a god

That’s true, but it seems to me the theist objector could put forth the milder claim that without God, objective morality does not exist, as opposed to claiming that objective morality could not exist on atheism. Consider for example the following moral argument:

(1) If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
(2) Objective morality does exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Premise (1) doesn’t say that objective morality couldn’t exist on atheism, only that it doesn’t exist if atheism is true. The theist could concede that while it is possible for objective morality to exist without God, objective morality probably doesn’t exist if atheism is true (e.g. I argued for the unlikeliness of objective morality on atheism in Does Objective Morality Exist If God Does Not Exist?).

This is not to say that your objection to the position you attacked is unsuccessful; my point is that the position you attacked is low hanging fruit and that the bigger threat is something to be wary of when defending an atheist view of objective morality.

With all that said, I agree that one need not believe in God to recognize the moral wrongness of e.g. rape.

Steven said...

@Maverick Christian.

The logic does not follow. Let me show you an example as to why this is the case.

1) If Buddhism is incorrect, then karma does not exist.

2) (Let us pretend) Karma does exist.

3) Therefore Buddhism is correct.

The reason this does not follow is that Buddhism is not the sole owner of the concept of "karma."

If we discovered that karma did exist, it could be the case that Jainism is correct, or that Hinduism is correct (both of which believe in karma), or it could be the case that they are all wrong, and they were only right about the existence of karma.

In the same way, even if objective morality did exist, that would not prove a god, it would only prove the existence of an objective morality.

The only way that your proof would work is if your first premise was "Objective morality can ONLY exist if God exists."

That is a premise I am not willing to accept.

Alonzo Fyfe said...

Maverick Christian

I have addressed the option of, "If God does not exist then there objective morality does not exist" as "the unimportant question".

It is the same as the statement, "If God did not exist then the tree would not exist." It is the very thing that the theist and atheist can disagree on without disagreeing on the height, mass, and age of the tree.

"If god does not exist then objective morality would not exist" has just as little significance to the properties of rape that give people generally reason to condemn it and punish those who engage in it as "If God did not exist then there would be no trees" does to the height, mass, and age of trees.

Maverick Christian said...

@Steven

The logic does follow. I have responded to your comment at my Does God Exist if Objective Morality Does Not Exist? page since you seem to have taken the discussion there.