In defense of atheistic morality
I’ve been having some fun conversing with several of my Christian friends about the basis for a godless morality. Many Christians think that there can be no such legitimate basis. They fear that the loss of an objective and absolute moral standard will result in complete moral subjectivity and relativity. I understand this fear because such a world would be a dreadful place indeed. Fortunately, this is a false dichotomy, and there is a middle way.
I will back up this claim with an analogical argument from the nature of language. In a world where everyone makes up his or her own language communication would be next to impossible. You might say, “lbasdf aslgqa asrgalgj,” and I would then have no idea what you are talking about. Or, you might use “table” to designate a car and “teakettle” to refer to a cat. Again, I would have no idea what you were talking about. There would be billions of languages – as many as there are people. A world of complete linguistic subjectivity is frightening to imagine.
We obviously do not live in such a world. We live in a world in which large groups of people share sign-sets and rule-sets which allow them to communicate. So, if it were true that either a perfectly objective standard exists or complete subjectivity will obtain, then there would have to be such an objective standard for our language(s). My question to my Christian friends who think that atheistic morality must be completely subjective because it has no perfectly objective standard, then, is this: what is the completely objective standard for our language(s)?
There is none, you see. It is tempting to point to a dictionary as just such a standard, but this fails for several reasons. Most importantly, languages have been around much longer than have dictionaries, so they cannot be essential to them. Words enter the vernacular long before they enter the dictionary. (Should I also mention the obvious fact that there are multiple, differing dictionaries?) Dictionaries are helpful reference and educational tools, but they are not an objective standard for language. Neither can ‘God’ be… unless you think that he makes up all the words in the world and then clandestinely instills them into each person’s mind – which I doubt you believe.
So we see that language is neither completely objective nor completely subjective. This means that it is useful, since it can succeed in bridging the gap between people, and also that it contains ambiguity, since there is no singular standard for it. What a modest and realistic appraisal! Absolutism vs. relativism and objectivism vs. subjectivism are shown by this to be false dichotomies. It really isn’t a case of either/or. Things can, and often do, have degrees of objectivity and degrees of subjectivity.
No one wants to live in a world where everyone lies and murders, and justifies these actions by appealing to a private moral system which no one else can legitimately denounce. We want to be able to say, “you ought not do that,” and we can, even if we don’t believe in God. We can do this because although no completely objective standard exists, a significant degree of objectivity can still be present in our moral formulations. Let me return for a moment to our analogy to explain how this can be.
The objective component of language comes from the fact that we all inhabit the same world. We can point to a table as we say “table,” and this lets others know what we mean. Similarly, the objective component of morality comes from our cohabitation in the same universe. I know what it is like to live in a world where suffering is a fact of life, and I know that I do not like to suffer. It does not take a leap of faith to believe that you probably don’t like to suffer either. Together (I have not addressed the issue of individualism but this is my nod to its importance), we can develop moral standards which proscribe actions that lead to suffering and perhaps even prescribe those that relieve it. Basically, a shared desire to be free of pain and a shared knowledge of what leads to pain forms a basis for morality. You don’t have to believe in God for the Golden Rule to make sense.
So, I believe that I have shown that there is a middle way between absolutism and relativism when it comes to morality. Such a system has a universal pole and a personal pole but does not collapse to either one (philosophically, such an approach is called critical realism). Now for a few closing remarks which I hope will deal with some possible objections.
Yes, this godless morality leaves room for ambiguity. As I’ve pointed out, language does too, and yet look how incredibly helpful language is to humanity in spite of this ambiguity! (I should note that moral ambiguity is a problem for Christians as well, since the moral code of the Bible is itself ambiguous.) Room is left for multiple, local moralities… just as with language. However, shared human experience will place limits on the range of variability between different systems. The morality which I describe is to be much preferred over a totalizing moral regime, in my opinion. Haven’t we seen what people can do when they are 100% certain that their moral standards alone are true and therefore should be imposed on others? In contrast, atheistic morality is realistic and humble.
I also realize that not everyone displays the same capacity for empathy. As a result, some people will have an underdeveloped moral sense. Of course, a similar problem obtains within Christian circles who agree on a supposed objective moral standard. The difference is that a lack of empathy in this case doesn’t keep a person from knowing what is right, but simply from doing what is right. Is that really so much better? We can and should cultivate our empathic abilities, developing a sense of compassion, regardless of whether we are believers or unbelievers.
For further reading:
# 1
Scott Lyons — Thu May 1, 04:33 PM
I’ve been meaning to respond to an older post, Jared, but then some stuff happened in the family and I never got around to it. And now you have another post up.
So I’ll respond to this post, albeit briefly.
Since becoming Catholic, there have been some interesting discoveries about who I was as a Protestant. And one of the stereotypes we Catholics like to throw against Protestants is fundamentally true, but not practically so. The charge counters Protestants’ beef with ecclesial authority, specifically with the pope (though misunderstood), that in Protestantism every man and woman is his or her own pope. That biblical interpretation is bound up in pride and subjectivism and that there could be as many interpretations as there are Protestants. That is ideologically true, but doesn’t play out practically.
The same charge, fundamentally, is leveled at atheists by Christians: As an atheist all morality is decided by the subject, since he puts himself under no authority, and therefore there is the fear of complete moral subjectivity and relativism.
Both accusations are potentially, but not practically, true. For instance, Protestants submit themselves to authority generally. There is always the door if one needs it, but there is some submission of authority nearly always taking place, and submission of authority to some tradition to boot. This submission may happen because of community or humility where you are weak or familiarity, or, etc. That being said, as a Protestant you could happily make your decisions about what it means for you to be and believe as a Christian. But while not practically so, that is where the Protestant argument fails, and that is where the atheistic morality argument fails as well.
Of course atheists subscribe to some kind of morality for a variety of reasons. But because there is no objective authority then there is no reason why he or she is obligated to. (The argument is not whether atheists will murder, given the opportunity, but that an atheist could, “morally,” if he came to the point in his life where he felt it necessary or “right” even.) Now you might say the obligation lies in community or in wanting to avoid prison or death or you might list sundry other reasons. But those aren’t objective reasons why one must be moral here and not there – it is ultimately your decision. If you want to take the bullet for having sex with a bigger and more jealous man’s wife, then you can make that call justifiably. For love even.
Believing in an objective morality/law and, therefore, a Law Giver is not required for moral living. But if we are merely animal, then we have no ultimate right to judge Hitler or a pedophile priest or a rapist or a liar. We have civil and state rights to do so, certainly. But teleologically one way is not better than the other, because there is no Judge. If there is no Judge, there is no oppression or injustice. If a tree is useful to me for warmth, I destroy it. If I have been formed by my environment to believe it is immoral to do so, I may not. But that does not mean that I cannot. So while practical morality may look a whole lot like objective morality handed as revealed by God, even while the former may borrow from the latter, they are two very disparate things.
That’s my answer as an argument stripped of its humanity and, of course, its divinity. It does not take into account so many other variables, such as the fact that atheists too are created as icons of God, or that God is pouring out graces to draw all men to Himself – yea, even atheists – or any of the other ten thousand places where Christ plays. It is certainly unfair and immoral to simply judge the atheist, to condemn him out of hand. All truth is God’s truth.
# 2
Robert — Fri May 2, 08:27 AM
Thanks for this post, Jared, and for your comment, Scott. I’ll chime in briefly as well. On the one hand I’m a little sad that you would have to make such a “defense,” Jared, in the first place. If you’re responding to Christians who challenged you about the basis for atheistic morality, well, I’m sure they meant well, but I would call such a critique misguided at best. I say this because for my part I really just don’t see the point. If the critique you’re responding to was given somehow in the hope of trying to get you back into the Christian fold, again I’m a bit sad. Just as I wouldn’t try to wholly convince someone to follow Jesus by way of rational argument, I’m not sure how effective it is to make the attempt to dissuade someone from not following Jesus using the same method. Don’t get me wrong, as someone who is still struggling to follow Jesus and is doing so because I believe somehow that “Jesus is the way,” my hope remains that you may one day find yourself caught up in this way again too. Still, I don’t want you to follow Jesus because it’s the most logical among many alternatives, or even because (in theory, perhaps) it’s the most moral way to live, etc. I want you to follow Jesus because you encounter him in a way that makes it impossible for you not to. I want you to follow Jesus because- however this might work out for you- you begin to have, perhaps for the first time in your life, a relationship with him that captivates your heart, soul, mind, and strength. So, from a Christian point of view, I’m not sure the argument you’re responding to is a good one to make in the first place.
Conversely, as Scott alluded to and we’ve spoken about many times before, if the Christian story is somehow true and God created the world and imbued humanity with the image of God, it only makes sense that to one degree or another we all have a God-given capacity and even inclination to be moral, whether the atheist acknowledges the source of this capacity/inclination or not. So I agree with you, Jared, that suggesting otherwise creates a false dichotomy. Of course, all of this only serves to render this line of questioning- at least in regard to its theory- moot. I say this because for the thoughtful Christian it’s not really a “problem” in the first place, as I’ve described above. Moreover, while the atheist might wish to show the Christian a moral world in which God does not exist, the Christian who remains a Christian can only empathetically imagine such a world from the atheist’s point of view, which is no doubt a helpful exercise, but (in my view) again raises the issue of the enduring value of having the (theoretical) discussion at all. I think the practice of all of this is what really counts. As Bart Ehrman (an atheist who was once a Christian) recently said:
And as Jim Wallis echoed: “On this a proponent of Christian faith and a former proponent can agree, thanks be to God! And so may we all …”
# 3
Jared — Tue May 6, 10:34 AM
Scott:
I’m so glad that you are one of my few blogging buddies – I always love to hear your perspective. That said, I can’t help but wonder if your comment does not illustrate my point that many people see no middle road between complete objectivism and complete subjectivism. I mean, I admitted in my post that there is no absolute ground for atheistic morality, but I went on to argue that this does not render it ineffectual (like language). Your comment rejects my thesis in favor of the dichotomy.
But why does it have to be all or nothing? To use your analogy (which I liked, by the way), what if a significant reason that there are not as many interpretations as there are Protestants is that the text itself serves as a constraint on interpretation – a degree of objectivity? I think this is indeed the case. This is why the Protestant/Catholic argument over Matthew 16:18 is about who or what is the foundation of the church, rather than about, forgive my silliness, if rock music and Peter Gabriel should be played as part of the worship of the church. If interpretation were completely subjective, then one could hold such an interpretation (for or against rock music and Peter Gabriel in worship) and no one could legitimately say anything about it. But isn’t that nonsense? Couldn’t a legitimate appeal be made to something other than authority to counteract this interpretation? Again, forgive my silly example, but it actually could have been much, much sillier. If interpretation were completely subjective, then no one could legitimately argue that Matt. 16:18 has nothing to do with why fish have gills.
So if I attempted to speak against Hitler, would I really just be talking to myself, as would be the case if morality were purely subjective? I don’t think so. Some degree of objectivity exists if we have “something to point to,” something outside of ourselves, which can give our arguments force. People interpreting scripture point primarily to the text, but to other things as well, to give their statements a degree of objectivity. The more they have to point to the more compelling the argument. I’m arguing that our shared knowledge of the human experience, specifically what it is like to suffer and a dislike of it, is just such a thing to point to. It’s not just within me, or you, but in most or all of us. Doesn’t that similarly constrain the range of moral opinion that will be considered valid by humanity? To be clear, I’m not saying that people won’t come up with crackpot views (as with the interpretation of scripture). I’m saying that when they do the rest of us still have a ground to stand on from which to denounce them.
Now, it may just be that you think the range will not be sufficiently constrained to make a world governed by such morality one in which you would like to live. After all, for all the constraints that the text of scripture places on legitimate interpretation there is a HELL of a lot of disagreement among protestants. If that is the case, then I do understand. I really do. I just do not agree. I think that, like with language, there is enough constraint/objectivity to make it work in practice. I don’t think society would break down or become dystopic. As you’ve said, many atheists do live moral lives.
# 4
Scott Lyons — Thu May 15, 01:13 PM
Jared, I enjoy having these conversations myself. I’m sorry it’s taken so long to comment. I don’t think my comment completely disagrees with you, though perhaps my wording is a bit funky. Let me better explain what I meant when I said, “fundamentally, but not practically” and “potentially, but not practically” true. My “practically” is the same as your “degree of objectivity,” I think – if I’m hearing you right. There are other factors at work besides religion in determining one’s morality – many, many other factors. My “potentially/fundamentally/ultimately” simply refers to the fact that for you there is no end game, no giving of accounts, no judgments. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t lines you won’t cross, but only that you don’t reign in your behavior because of fear of God – at least not consciously. You don’t, obviously, by definition. There is a wide berth between what I see as potentially lawless and practically lawless – your middle way/ground. Certainly atheists operate under a sense of right and wrong. No question. About why you do so, we might ultimately disagree. Everyone, or nearly so, has a sense of right and wrong and your sense of such might be better formed than another’s sense, especially having come out of Christianity, which prizes righteousness. But the “ought” is there for nearly every one of us regardless of our being religious or irreligious.
About Hitler and pedophiles and such – I am not saying that you do not see such things as wrong, but only say that there doesn’t seem to be any ultimate reason for doing so as an atheist. And perhaps it is this “ultimate reason” to see it as wrong (God is my Judge kind of thought) is where I don’t understand your perspective. Yes, you see it as immoral. I get that. But why does it matter that you do? That’s where I’m losing you – and maybe what you’re saying is that you don’t need an “ultimate” reason in order to do so. And I get that and agree with you. But stairways that don’t lead anywhere make me nervous. In other words, in the end, what will it matter whether I loved and protected children or whether I molested them? So perhaps you could clarify how you see the end purpose of morality, because I think that’s where I’m confused. I know atheists are moral and I know why I believe they are. What I don’t know is why they think it matters.
Granted, why it would matter doesn’t affect whether an atheist’s morality matches or outstrips mine. But it does begin to ask questions about whether there is a natural law and whether it has origins somewhere or in something or someone Other than ourselves.
Commenting is closed for this article.