Daily Times

In part I of this article we discussed the basic terminology of morality, both objective and subjective, ontology and its differentiation from epistemology. We also discussed biological evolution as an argument for the atheistic worldview of morality. In this part, we will continue with Moral realism and draw our conclusions.

OBJECTIVE MORALITY SIMPLY “IS”- MORAL REALISM.

Another atheistic world view focuses on the fact that morality does not require religious tenets i.e. moral values such as truth, compassion and integrity just exist. Moral objectivism is based on the existence of morals without God. Secular morality encompasses concepts such as free thought and consequentialism. Free thought is essentially the principles of using logic, science and reason instead of authority and dogma. Consequentialism and utilitarianism focus on the result of an action and classify these actions as moral or immoral depending on the results that the action produces. In his book the “moral landscape,” Sam Harris describes “well-being of conscious creatures” as a surrogate marker for human morality and all the actions leading to this as ethical and morally correct. Similarly, according to Harris if something is “unpleasant” it’s objectively morally bad- a conclusion that does not make any sense.

Here is Sam Harris drawing a parallel between religion and rape in his book “Letter to the Christian Nation”- “religion has served an important purpose. This does not suggest that it serves an important purpose now. There is after all nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good or compatible with a civil society because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors”. This is a good example of the paradox faced by the ethical naturalist whose morality is not grounded in religion. If rape is morally wrong according to both the theist and the atheist, the later can’t explain the objective justification for rape to be morally wrong? Incest can also be quoted as an example- the famous physicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss discussed incest in one of his debates, stating that if contraception is used incest can be rationalised. If only looked upon purely by a scientific perspective worsening genetic mutations is probably the only downside of incest. Religion however prohibits incest with the moral viewpoint of preserving a social and family structure within the primary fabric of a society, which would be fundamentally corrupted if incest is allowed.

The search for a foundation of morality has taken us from moral scepticism to moral nihilism and moral relativism

When describing objectivity, we cannot just voice our own opinions and claim that they are objective features of the world as these are mere claims. They are only opinions and are, therefore, subjective. It just a self-serving bias which is a logical fallacy.

For this justification to be sound it must be grounded in religion as the divine commandment is the only objective rationality. Some authors have drawn comparison to other creations of God. The entire cosmos, microorganisms, atomic and subatomic particles, all are God’s creations and follow the laws designated by God as their prime objective features. There are similar laws for human beings too, but granted that we have free will, it makes these objective features, a choice. Furthermore, the religious explanation of moral values also entails an obligation to fulfil moral values as a duty whereas the atheist model of so-called objective morality is devoid of any such obligation.

Dostoyevsky, the famous Russian philosopher in his last novel, The Brothers Karamazov, says “If God is dead, all is permitted,”. According to Dostoyevsky, In the absence of a God and the balance of punishments and rewards bestowed upon humans’, morality as an objective value cannot exist. Many naturalists have used David Hume’s famous “is-ought problem”, where a fact, “is” (descriptive value) leads to an “ought” (normative value) to justify an objective base for morality without God. Sam Harris has used this to explain the naturalistic stance of morality. However, this philosophy is based on the naturalistic fallacy of an ought to is i.e. Harris is deriving his “is” from his “ought”. He equates human well-being with what’s morally good. He claims to have bridged the “is-ought” gap with scientific explanations. The fact of the matter is scientific theories as an explanation of moral values simply do not work. For example, Immanuel Kant in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals said “The practical part of science is concerned only with what must be done to achieve a certain purpose; it doesn’t address the question of whether the purpose is reasonable and good. The instructions to a physician for how to make a patient thoroughly healthy, and for a poisoner to bring certain death to his victim, are of equal [practical] value in that each serves perfectly to achieve its intended purpose”. Some of the logical systems for explanation of subjective morality are based on emotions. It should be noted that using your emotions as logical evidence is also a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad passions i.e appeal to emotion fallacy.

The Euthyphro dilemma

Socrates’s Euthyphro dilemma is often considered one of the earliest refutations of the idea that morality requires religion. The dilemma dictates that “Is something morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”

The first horn of this dilemma implies that if God commands something to be morally good or evil, this value must be completely arbitrary and not objective. The second horn of the dilemma implies that morality is something higher and independent of God. Both horns contradict the validity of God as a grounding for objective morality. However, this is a false dilemma as there is a third alternative – God wills something because he is good as HE and the source of ultimate goodness. In other words, the moral standard is part of the essence of God and not external to him.

The response to this dilemma can also be described as:

1. God created morality as objective features of human actions.

2. He ordained according to these objective features.

3. God doesn’t lie.

4. Therefore, when God commands something, it is good too. He will always ordain according to how he created them as a standard.

5. Similarly, God commands it because it is morally good.

Conclusions:

As a social animal, we need to interact with others. We need to fulfil our moral obligations irrespective of our desires, wants and goals. It is therefore very important that the differences between subjective and objective morality should be recognised, appreciated and acted upon.

The search for a foundation of morality has taken us from moral scepticism to moral nihilism and moral relativism. The former two denies the existence of morality and the latter is subject to tremendous variability. Accepting God as a sound grounding for objective morality, human societies will make it difficult for dictators like Hitler and Stalin to introduce extremely unconventional and abhorrent moral standards.

Dr Suhail Anwar is a doctor of medicine, a surgeon, with a interest in theology and history