A Universal Moral Standard
1 Background
A Christian apologist claims that the basis of morality has to be a "Higher Moral Frame of Reference" which for him is The Bible, but which for others could be The Qu'ran or The Book of Mormon, or other Scripture...
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 1 Jan
2014 at 12:06PM
When you were previously asked to define “HMFR” you stated that “it
could be The Bible, or the Qu'Ran, or the Book of Mormon, or whatever work
embodies what a given society would regard for the most part as their fixed
HMFR” ...but now you seem to have changed your mind by saying that Scripture is
not a Higher Moral Frame of Reference. I think you're also saying that it is a
requirement for a Higher Moral Frame of Reference to include a description of a
spiritual realm and/or afterlife. So I'm confused. Could you perhaps provide a
definition of a Higher Moral Frame of Reference? The term is entirely your
invention as far as I know, but if there's a definition from another source
then I'd be grateful if you could provide a citation.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by An Apologist on 4 Jan
2014 at 12:18AM
Christian Scripture is always a HMFR, as are
the scriptures of any other religion whose "scriptures"--or any works
that would in essence constitute such--have a moral imperative. Some religions
may have "scriptures" that define particular beliefs of how the
spiritual realm operates without necessarily having a moral imperative, and
some "scriptures" may constitute a moral reference while ignoring or
downplaying matters of the spiritual realm. A "higher moral frame of
reference" is just that--it defines the moral code of a particular religion and sets standards
for such while anchoring its basis in the imperatives of the spiritual realm.
Most scriptures do this and more, with reasoning behind the particular moral
code in question as the basis for an integrated view of moral matters and of
spiritual ones.
Note his definition of a Higher Moral Frame of Reference...
"...defines the moral code of a particular religion and sets standards for such while anchoring its basis in the imperatives of the spiritual realm."
He asks several questions on this topic which are listed in the FAQ which can be found towards the bottom of this article).
When I asked this question: "Is moral instruction from, say, a secular humanist religion not a HMFR because it doesn't refer to a spiritual realm.?"
...he avoided answering by providing a "challenge" …
"I would counter challenge you to define any moral standards that all ought to subscribe to minus a previously-defined Higher Moral Frame of Reference"
So here is one example of "moral standards" that require no "imperatives of the spiritual realm"…
2 Moral standards that all ought to subscribe to
- Above all else, recognise the golden rule - treat others as you would like them to treat you, and do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
- Conduct yourself honestly towards others if you want people to be honest to you. We have to co-operate with each other to create the society that we want to live in.
- Allow others the freedom to believe what they like if you want to have the same freedom. Everyone should be free to decide what gives their own life meaning and purpose.
- Allow others to express their opinion, no matter how silly or plain wrong you think it is, if you want to be able to freely express yours. You don't have to respect their opinion but you must respect their right to have one.
- Allow others to live in peace if you want to have safety and security. You must not become preoccupied only with your own interests and forget the rest of the community.
- Be considerate of other people and respect their rights if you want them to respect yours. All rights come with the associated responsibility to grant the same right to others.
- Be aware that people are different and don't all want to be treated the same way.
- In all things, strive to cause no harm.
- Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
- Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
- Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
- Always seek to be learning something new.
- Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
- Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
- Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
- Question everything.
- Leave consenting adults to enjoy their sex lives in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.
- Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.
- Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
- Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.
3 Why ought anyone adopt these?
3.1 Self Evident
First of all we should note that most people understand what is good and what is bad instinctively with no explanation, so one answer to the question is that we don't need any reasons to explain why people ought to adopt these standards, because they tend to do so anyway. But if explanations are required there are basically three:
3.2 Consequentialism
They are goal based, not rule based. This is often referred to as consequentialism. We start by explaining the goals for people to live a happy and fulfilled life, which is essentially the minimising of suffering and the maximising of happiness. People can then assess their actions in the context of achieving those goals. It then becomes simple when explaining morality to do so in the context of the consequences of one's conduct, which is the fundamental basis for any decision of what is right and what is wrong. The book "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris describes this at length.
3.3 Consequences in real life
The consequences described in 3.2 are based on the consequences in this life, not a hypothetical "afterlife". This adds significant weight and applicability to the imperative to be good, because it requires no belief in the supernatural, and is therefore applicable to everyone regardless of their supernatural beliefs.
3.4 They are not sectarian
They are based on logic and reason and therefore not influenced by sectarianism, dogma or logical fallacies. This adds significant weight and applicability to the imperative to be good because the reasons are independent of the arguments between religions as to which one represents the truth. They are true regardless of religion.
3.5 Secular Humanism
If one requires an overarching philosophy to describe the points above, most will be found within the concept of secular humanism. There is a good overview on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
3.6 - Our Existence Depends on it
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
- Albert Einstein, letter to a minister November 20, 1950; from Albert Einstein, the Human Side, Chapter 11.
4 Examples
4.1 The Seizure of Property
Imagine a judgement regarding the ownership of a tract of property. Let's further assume that the person which might be judged "wrong" by your standards has the power/prestige/position to ignore such a judgement--and does so. The powerful person is in position to inflict harm on whomever would oppose him for the sake of "righteousness", which we already agree can't be objectively defined in your perspective. Who is going to step up and right this supposed "wrong" at the cost of his/her head? Not many in any case--but even fewer minus a subscribed-to HMFR that would motivate and indeed impell one to do so."
4.1 - Explanation
Firstly we should note that the concept of "righteousness" is theological and is therefore out of scope of any universal moral standard described here.
Examples of this kind have happened many times in history, and still happen. Let's consider the occupation and seizure of land owned by Native Americans by European conquerers. The "powerful people" in this example are the people with the most powerful weapons (the Europeans) and their moral justification came from their interpretation of the Bible. So let's apply secular morality to this example and see what the outcome is... There are five major moral guidelines we can refer to in this example:
Observation of wrongdoing
|
Why is this wrong?
|
The "powerful" people are causing suffering.
|
Above all else, recognise the golden rule - treat others as you would like them to treat you, and do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
|
The "powerful" people are refusing to cooperate or compromise and this generally makes the world a worse place.
|
Conduct yourself honestly towards others if you want people to be honest to you. We have to co-operate with each other to create the society that we want to live in.
|
The rights of ordinary people are not being respected and this will be remembered and will have consequences
|
Be considerate of other people and respect their rights if you want them to respect yours. All rights come with the associated responsibility to grant the same right to others.
|
The conquerers were indoctrinated to believe they were right. Injustice becomes less prevalent when people are allowed to think for themselves.
|
Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
|
Great harm is being caused
|
In all things, strive to cause no harm.
|
Next we have the question of who will "step up and right this supposed wrong" and the answer in this example is that the Native peoples tried to right the wrong, but they were outgunned. What history teaches us is that there is something more powerful than weapons, and that is democracy. Sadly, in this example, there was no secular democracy to give the weak a voice and tame the religious dogma of the powerful, and so the weak perished, and now it's too late to right the wrong. As a species, we learn from examples such as this and look forward to a more humanitarian future where it becomes less likely for the example described here to happen and the weak are protected by national and international laws.
5 - You don't need God to be Good - FAQ
5.1 - Propaganda
This message is hardly new. Rationalists, free-thinkers, skeptics and philosophers have been making this point for hundreds of years. The message was suppressed by mainstream religions when they had the power to do so and they had the power to punish "heretics". But secular democracy means the message can now only be attacked by propaganda. The rise of secularism seems inevitable and so more and more people recognise that religious belief is not a necessity for moral, decent behaviour. More and more people can see that prisons are not full of atheists, that the countries with the highest levels of violent crime tend to be the most religious, and so on. Having a special word (atheist) for people who don't believe in gods is itself an odd concept - there is no special word for people who don't believe in fairies!
Some would argue that the three Abrahamic religions have often been the vehicles for vindictiveness, oppression, discrimination, hypocrisy, bigotry and horrible violence. I would argue that religion should not be blamed for the actions of bad people who use religion as their justification. It's simply that religion makes no difference either way, which is why there are examples throughout human history of both evil theists and evil atheists.
It is common for religious apologists to claim that the non-religious lead empty, meaningless, hopeless, selfish lives and have no reason to be good. They will even equate the morality of an atheist with the morality of a psychopath. This is not only false, it is also ridiculous. Sadly, some people accept these myths because they believe what they hear about non-believers. Another myth is that the non-religious are immoral, or at least that they can’t be relied upon to be as good as those with religious beliefs. This idea exists because religious apologists see their particular god or faith as the basis for their emotions such as hope, caring, and love. Obviously some religious people may find inspiration in their belief - but it's wrong to presume that their belief is necessary for a good and fulfilling life. Inspiration can - and does - come from a million different sources.
5.1.1 Atheism is incapable of offering any objective basis for a "moral" society whatsoever.
A typical quote from a religious apologist. And of course, this is true. Atheism can provide no basis for anything, because it's not an ideology or a philosophy. The same is true of theism. Atheists and theists get their morality from a variety of sources, but not atheism and not theism. The point about atheism is that atheists cannot claim moral superiority any more than religious people can…
"And as the religious are fond of saying, atheists are free to become nihilists or sadists or solipsists without the fear of an eternal punishment after death - a point famously made by Dostoyevsky. But the fact is that many sadists, child abusers and mass-murderers are also strongly religious and claim to hear divine messages commanding them to commit their crimes, and some of the most appalling atrocities in history have been committed in the name of some god or other. So our propensity for good or bad behaviour is neither caused by, or prevented by, religion. Even if religion disappeared overnight, and the human race turned entirely to logic and reason, we would continue to argue about ethics and morality just as much as when religion ruled civilisation."
5.1.2 There is no logical basis for objective morality or ultimate meaning and purpose if you are an atheist
Another typical quote from a religious apologist!
In fact there is a logical basis for morality, meaning and purpose without requiring the existence of a god. For all people, morality and purpose are developed through nature and nurture. For theists and atheists alike, this may involve being prescribed behaviour by a trusted community among many other factors. The important point here is that a logical basis for morality is more robust than a supernatural basis. The logical basis applies to everyone. The concept of objective morality is perhaps an illusion, whether one is religious or not (see 5.1.4).
5.1.3 - Religion can provide "fixed moral values"
The moral principles that religious apologists claim to be "objective" or "fixed" are in fact what they feel, subjectively, to be true. Two people from the same religion can have contradictory moral points of view based on the same "Scripture". And they both claim their point of view is "objective" or "fixed". Ironically, removing religion from morality can often provide a more objective point of view!
5.1.4 - Does Objective Morality even exist?
Even if we remove religion from the equation, the existence of objective morality is debatable. Some argue a scientific approach to morality, as if morality is as clear cut as 1+1=2. But morality is never that clear cut because of consequences, and consequences of consequences, as well as prerequisites and mitigation. Even with objective rules like "it's wrong to steal" we can always think up scenarios where someone was justified in stealing something. So maybe we should say that it's wrong to steal, but sometimes it's right to do something wrong. So there can be objective moral values (such as the golden rule and so on) but they cannot be applied objectively in any given situation. In any case, the debate over the existence of objective morality or not, is a debate between both theists and atheists. Neither side can claim it.
5.1.5 - Morality cannot arise from Amoral Physical Processes
This is often stated as an axiomatic truth by religious apologists, but they can't explain why. If eyeballs and emotions can arise form physical processes, then so can morality. There's an interesting view on this from HP Lovecraft in a letter to a friend...
"Now let us view morality—which despite your preconceived classification and identification has nothing to do with any particular form of religion. Morality is the adjustment of matter to its environment—the natural arrangement of molecules. More especially it may be considered as dealing with organic molecules. Conventionally it is the science of reconciling the animal Homo (more or less) sapiens to the forces and conditions with which he is surrounded. It is linked with religion only so far as the natural elements it deals with are deified and personified. Morality antedated the Christian religion, and has many times risen superior to coexistent religions. It has powerful support from very non-religious human impulses. Personally, I am intensely moral and intensely irreligious. My morality can be traced to two distinct sources, scientific and aesthetic. My love of truth is outraged by the flagrant disturbance of sociological relations involved in so-called wrong; whilst my aesthetic sense is outraged and disgusted with the violations of taste and harmony thereupon attendant. But to me the question presents no ground for connexion with the grovelling instinct of religion."
5.1.6 - The Moral Consequences of Atheism
Religious apologists will argue that one of the consequences of atheism is a lack of morality or even the end of civilisation as we know it. This myth has been dealt with by philosophers and authors a thousand times over. You will find the famous essay by J. L. Mackie here
A brief extract…
"Now if some adherent to a morality has held either the first or the third of these views, so that he has seen morality as essentially dependent upon some god, then it is indeed possible that if he then ceases to believe in that god his adherence to that morality will be undermined: the immediate moral consequences of his atheism may be deplorable. This is a good reason for not tying morality to religious teaching at a time when religious belief is itself fragile. The point is well made by Richard Robinson’s story of a priest saying to a pair of well-behaved atheists, “I can’t understand you boys; if I didn’t believe in God I should be having a high old time.” But if either our second view (of an autonomous objective ethics) or our fourth (naturalist or sentimentalist) view is correct, there is no reason to suppose that such undermining will be either a lasting or a general effect of the decay of religious belief. Indeed, it is hardly even necessary that either of these views should be correct: it is enough that they are available to the atheist. But in particular if, as I have argued elsewhere, the fourth view is correct, then morality has a genuine causal source of its own. It is basically a matter of feelings and attitudes, partly instinctive, developed by biological evolution, and partly acquired, developed by socio-historical evolution and passed on from generation to generation less by deliberate education than by the automatic transmission of cultural traits."
5.1.7 - The Higher Moral Authority
Religious Apologists will claim that Scripture with a basis in a "spiritual realm" provides the "authority" for what is right and wrong. Ironically, this argument is back to front. Elizabeth Anderson wrote a fascinating essay on this topic. This very brief extract summarises the irony of the religious apologist position…
"I am arguing that morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim making, in which everyone is accountable to everyone else, does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority. It is underwritten by the authority we all have to make claims on one another. Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it. For divine command theories of morality may make believers feel entitled to look only to their idea of God to determine what they are justified in doing. It is all too easy under such a system to ignore the complaints of those injured by one’s actions, since they are not acknowledged as moral authorities in their own right. But to ignore the complaints of others is to deprive oneself of the main source of information one needs to improve one’s conduct. Appealing to God rather than those affected by one’s actions amounts to an attempt to escape accountability to one’s fellow human beings."
5.1.8 - "There is no objective basis for morality in a universe (supposedly) governed by amoral processes."
This is yet another religious apologist quote, another variation on the same theme. It can be broken down into two parts. The answer to the first part is that yes, there is an objective basis for morality, regardless of the processes which govern our universe (whatever that means). However - can we be sure objective morality even exists? See 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. The second part is a description of our universe as one which is "supposedly governed by amoral processes". Obviously, natural processes are "amoral" because morality is a feature of life, not of physical processes. Morality, intelligence and every other aspect of life, results from "amoral" and "mindless" processes, to use the language of the apologist. Morality does not require pre-existing moral processes in order to evolve. Intelligence does not require pre-existing intelligent processes in order to evolve. And eyeballs do not require pre-existing eyeball processes in order to evolve.
The alternative to "amoral processes" is presumably "moral processes". Perhaps the religious apologist is suggesting that laws of physics which describe the mechanics of our universe are actually governed by "moral processes". This seems to be a convoluted way of saying there is no basis for morality without God. The religious apologist appears to be trying to avoid using the word "God" for some reason.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods or spiritual beings. The word atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods. It is bet understood as a-theism rather than athe-ism because atheism is not an "ism"! It has no doctrine or beliefs or scripture.
This lack of doctrine mean it's hard to generalise on what atheists do believe. I think it's fair to say that atheists don't use gods to explain the existence of the universe, that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of gods or scriptures. But there may well be atheists who disagree with what I've just said!
5.1.10 Why don't atheists have faith?
The reasons are many and various, but I think they include: insufficient evidence to support the supernatural aspects of religion; they consider much of Scripture to be infantile and nonsensical; they were religious once but lost their faith; they live in a non-religious culture; they have other ways to meet their needs; they perceive religion to have done a lot of harm in the world; the callousness of nature; and many more reasons I haven't thought of.
5.1.11 Can atheists be religious?
Yes! Buddhism is the most obvious example but I also have friends who claim to be atheist Jews and atheist Christians. There are many benefits to religion, and they must not be lost. Religion can be a force for good and a force for bad. It's important to recognise the good things, and adopt them. Anti-theists are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
5.1.12 Surely the values you describe are your own personal values, of your choosing?
If I had invented them I suppose I could call them "mine". And I certainly didn't choose them! They are values that I can agree with but far more importantly, so do most people, including people of faith. So they are best described as "our" own personal values - not mine (or yours). Bertrand Russell's essay which can be found here covers this topic among many others. Another point of view can be found here
5.1.13 Where is the moral imperative in values which do not require God?
This is explained in section 3. In short - our existence depends on the values described, and more fundamentally, we exist because those values provide evolutionary advantages. There can be no greater imperative. See also Carl Van Doren's essay referred to in 5.2. Furthermore, when explaining the reasons for good moral behaviour, the consequences of such behaviour in this life can be explained more robustly and convincingly than consequences after death, because they can be illustrated with real life examples.
5.1.14 If the adoption of values is not an imperative of religious belief then what stops someone ignoring those values for personal gain?
People will behave in a bad way whether they are religious or not. This demonstrates that the "imperative" to be good is common to everyone. But of course, we can't use the word "everyone" when we talk about human nature. We can only refer to the majority. There will always be a minority who don't recognise the values most people do. They remain a minority because ignoring those values is unattractive, not sustainable and self-defeating.
5.1.15 How can moral relativism and its assumptions provide true moral guidance?
The question doesn't specify which type of moral relativism is being referred to but my perspective is more aligned to descriptive moral relativism than any other type. In other words, moral relativism is not a system for moral guidance except for the the anthropological and biological explanations it can provide. In my point of view, moral relativism describes a phenomenon. Moral guidance comes to us from other people and our own experience. (See also Section 5 here)
5.2 - Carl Van Doren
A particularly good explanation of why God is not required for us to be good is provided by Carl Van Doren’s essay “Why I am an Unbeliever”...
"Finally, do I never suspect in myself some moral obliquity, or do I not at least regret the bleak outlook of unbelief? On these points I am, in my own mind, as secure as I know how to be. There is no moral obligation to believe what is unbelievable any more than there is a moral obligation to do what is undoable. Even in religion, honesty is a virtue. Obliquity, I should say, shows itself rather in prudent pretense or in voluntary self-delusion. Furthermore, the unbelievers have, as I read history, done less harm to the world than the believers. They have not filled it with savage wars or snarled casuistries, with crusades or persecutions, with complacency or ignorance. They have, instead, done what they could to fill it with knowledge and beauty, with temperance and justice, with manners and laughter. They have numbered among themselves some of the most distinguished specimens of mankind. And when they have been undistinguished, they have surely not been inferior to the believers in the fine art of minding their own affairs and so of enlarging the territories of peace.
You can read the full essay here… [ Why I am an Unbeliever - Carl Van Doren ]
5.3 - The Simple Question
There is also a simple question which demonstrates the fallacious nature of the apologist argument, because they find it impossible to answer. The question is this:
Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist.
5.4 - Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism is considered by some to be a religion without God, although it can be argued that any ideology that has no gods is not technically a religion. In any case, secular humanists show how morality can be explained and taught without having to resort to gods, spiritual realms and eternal punishments or rewards. Various secular humanist organisations have published material for the teaching or explanation of of morality which, it can be argued, are more robust than religious material. The religious material is limited to those who believe in particular god. The secular material does not limit its audience - it's applicable to everyone, in any culture, whether they are religious or not.
One example is "Spelling God with Two O's" by Arthur Dobrin.
Life beckons. How will you respond? This is the central message and question of Spelling God With Two O’s. Through quotations, questions, brief essays, anecdotes, and parables, this book examines important values and themes of life. Spelling God With Two O’s presents a collage of thoughts that creates a meaningful philosophy by which to live. The basic point is that compassion and social justice leads to a life filled with happiness. I hope that you find this book a useful complement to your spiritual practice. When everyone lives in the spirit of goodness, how is it possible for the world not to be a better place?"
5.5 - Scientific Evidence
The discovery of mirror neurons by Italian neuroscientist Giaccomo Rizzolatti in the 1990s provided physiological proof of why, and how, human beings are prone to be good rather than bad. Mirror neurons are brain cells which harmonise us with our environment. They reflect the outside world inward so that, we become each other - just a little bit. We become neurologically changed by what is happening around us. Mirror neurons are why we we experience empathy and feel the pain of another human being. They explain why we instinctively blush when we see someone else humiliated, flinch when someone else is hit, and laugh when we hear laughter.
Because of mirror neurons, a population of successful cooperators has a much higher chance of thriving than a population of selfish, cheating liars. The vast majority of human beings are naturally good, positive creatures, most of the time in most of the ways that matter. You can read about mirror neurons here…
Furthermore, evolutionary psychology explains that our brains include five domains where people have moral intuitions. Each is found in human populations throughout the world. They consist of Harm/Care - Fairness / Reciprocity - In-group / Loyalty - Authority / Respect - Purity / Sanctity
More information here...
5.6 - God Designed us to be Good
It can be argued that biological evidence of why human beings tend to be good is evidence that God designed us that way. This argument is impossible to disprove, but if we assume it's true it demonstrates that we don't need to believe in God to be good, even if God exists.
6 - So who says you need God to be good?
A study by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution in the USA in 2013 provided a breakdown of the American population and among several questions, asked whether you need God to be moral. According to the study, the people who agree that you don't need God to be Good are the young, educated, politically independent, liberal, religiously unaffiliated, and rich. The full breakdown is below, and there are some very interesting indicators.
No comments:
Post a Comment