Can Morality be Objective?
From a Christian perspective, we can infer that since a benevolent God is dictating the terms of the world, thus morality is indeed objective.
An almighty God is responsible for the existence of everything, who himself is eternal. The workings of this eternal being are beyond our ability to comprehend hence, we must bow down to the father.
He has laid down the path for a virtuous life, embedding goodness and evil in nature as natural entities. Hence from a religious perspective, we can derive the concepts of good and evil as being objectively accurate.
“If we take God out of the picture, the task of determining a good action gets rather tricky.”
“How can we say murder is bad if there are no objective criteria to determine it?”
God lays down the objective criteria for morally judging actions, but how can we say so without one?
This question has bugged Atheist Philosophers and Intellectuals while engaging in Philosophical discourse on God. Intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens haven’t been very successful in deriving morality without God. They evade the question by taking cheap shots at the religious worldview or engaging in something out of topic.
Hitherto, the attempts have been minimal, hence it would be of no harm if I make my own attempt.
Some Liberal Atheists argue that while there is no God, there are human feelings, which possess ultimate value. We ought not to hurt others, not because God demands it, but because others suffer.
While this argument might make sense but Christian Philosophers like William Lane Craig aren’t delighted.
Dr. Craig argues that while it is true that we shan’t hurt others because of the suffering it produces, but on what basis are we determining that suffering should be reduced if ontologically there is no God?
(which would imply that life is inherently meaningless)
He goes on further to argue that the religious worldview provides that basis in the form of a maximally great being, God. With God in the picture, life has meaning as it extends beyond our imagination, mystically. Thus we ought to do the right thing as morality is as objective as gravity.
Returning to our Atheistic view, which by default makes morality subjective. According to modern science, our sense of justice, right and wrong got shaped by the complex process of evolution, which in one way or the other helps us to survive and pass on our genes.
“Why ought we care about morality if they are just mere feelings, with nothing divine about them?”
Sure, Morality doesn’t exist the same way that gravity does, still, it is a thing that exists out there in our collective imagination.
Rather than looking at morality as a natural concept, we may perceive it as an abstract tool that is beneficial for the proper functioning and betterment of society.
They are a set of fictional tools (though not entirely fictional, considering they have an evolutionary basis) that helps in regulating the society, without which everything would collapse.
There are about 8.7 million species of animals inhabiting the planet, yet only one of them is the ruler-Homo Sapiens. It is partly because of our ability to cooperate on a large scale.
(This fact is rightly pointed in the works of the Historian Yuval Noah Harari)
This large-scale cooperation is only possible because of our ability to believe in stories and abstract ideas such as justice, liberty, God. It is something unique to our species.
For instance, Ontologically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper with no significance. You cannot eat it, wear it or drink it.
But in our collective imagination, we have assigned worth to it, and hence we can use this worthless piece of paper and in exchange get something to eat, which actually helps us survive.
We have established that morals are to be seen merely as tools, which are of utility. Like an air conditioner is a tool to provide comfort, morals are a set of tools to provide a just society. The only difference is that the latter is formless. It lacks physical structure, unlike a vehicle, or a laptop. Yet as a vehicle and a laptop serve the needs of society, so does morals.
Still, a question arises-
“Sure, being morally sound benefits the society. But why ought we aim for a better society, if life is inherently meaningless, and we are just a set of atoms, with nothing divine about it?”
To answer this, I believe the trail of logic given by Dr. Harari in his book 21 lessons for the 21st Century is sufficient.
The answer lies in the fact that we are social animals, and that our well-being, to a great extent depends on our social relations. It is natural for humans to care for their well-being, and since we are so socially driven, it would only make sense to aim for society’s welfare.
We ought to respect the way evolution has shaped because that is the reason we are here and, having this discussion. It also tells that there is something logical about following our instincts, which tells us murder is unethical.
We must now further our discussion to determine which sort of moral system shall be our utmost priority. There are different kinds of moral systems, and just like tools, some are superior, while others are inferior.
While doing so, we would enquire about the nature of different forms of philosophical theories ( Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Kantianism, Virtue theory), and different forms of government (Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy) and conclude regarding what combination of these tools heeds the society the most.
Comments