Canon Fodder

No doubt you’ve heard about the devastation in Myanmar left in the wake of the recent cyclone. The latest CNN report this morning estimates the death toll at more than 22,000, and there’s talk that this event could eventually be “worse” than the tsunami of 2004, in which more than 150,000 people perished. Now, I will be among the first to say that just “throwing money” at persistent problems like poverty, disease, etc. isn’t always the best method of rooting out the causes of those problems and eliminating them. In many cases, while money no doubt provides some relief, it ultimately serves to perpetuate the systems that cause such problems in the first place while relieving relatively affluent Western folks of a little guilt about their status (which, again, only reinforces the systems- like the unsustainable Western way of life- that cause such problems in the first place). However, I think this line of reasoning applies more to systemic issues and obviously takes a long-term view. When devastation from natural disaster like the cyclone in Myanmar occurs, however, the scale of the problem requires a global response and a diversity of relief- including, but not limited to- money.

So here’s what I propose. Many of us are receiving economic stimulus checks from good ol’ Uncle Sam. This windfall was entirely unexpected, but if you’re like me, you have more than a little debt or other “needs” that this money can go to- which is to say nothing of the Fed’s desire to see us run out and spend the money to boost the economy. However, as I suggested above and have spoken of before, our (Western, American) way of life is unsustainable. The “correction” the economy is undergoing is sorely needed, and in my view a much more extensive one is required. Of course, I’m not an economist and my grasp of these matters is admittedly limited. My point is that I would encourage you not to run out and spend the money on more stuff. I would encourage you to pay down debt, maybe save a little, and while you’re at it, help out the folks in Myanmar. My family plans to “tithe” 10% of our stimulus check to do just that. Groups like The Red Cross, World Vision, and Mennonite Central Committee have proven track records when it comes to rendering aid around the world in situations like this and stand ready to receive your support as they do this. So, please, join me in doing your part!

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:

• Where do Atheists Get Their Morality From?
• Morality Requires God … or Does It?
• Secular Humanism: Moral Affirmations
• 10 Myths About Secular Humanism