Where do your morals come from?
Theists believe that their morality comes from a divine entity. As such, it is by way of an absolute moral law and other objective moral values such as “Love thy neighbor as yourself.”
In opposition to theists, moral relativists believe that nothing can be known about moral values, and as such morality is entirely subjective. I reject (as of November 3, 2011) both of these theories of morality. I find rule-following morality, morality by preference, and especially punishment-avoiding morality to be the most very paltry forms of human behavior.
Clearly, atheists are not evil and immoral people. In fact, case studies show the opposite. Morality still applies, even when belief in God is not present. The following is a case for a principled, objective morality, one which exists without reference to a deity. Morality is the concern with the welfare of conscious beings.
I. Objective Versus Universal, Absolute, Constant, and Subjective
In its simplest form, the article is about the notion that science can determine moral values. It is almost universally accepted that it is, in a general social context, wrong to murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc. So, first off, let us not make the mistake of confusing objective morality with a universally accepted morality. Because not everybody agrees on the issue does not invalidate an objective morality, nor does it prove moral relativism.
Further, as we ought to clarify, objective morality does not mean absolute morality. It is likely that etics and emics govern morality as they do psychology or sociology. When somebody says absolute moral laws, the first thing that pops into your mind is perhaps The Ten Commandments. The word ‘law’ often evokes a sense of crime and punishment. Broad absolute laws do not exist within the framework of an objective morality, as there is no omnipotent law-giver. Instead, it is said that moral claims are contextually absolute. Within a particular situation, it may be morally permissible to kill (such as self-defense, war, etc.).
Third: Objective morality, by Sam Harris, does not mean unchanging or static morality. Those same standards certainly cannot be applied to any other objective science. Evolution is neither universally accepted, nor unchanging in its history. Genetics is constantly changing; and one should expect an objective morality to do the same. Notice how views of morality have evolved over the last two millennia. After all, it is no surprise that cultures long and far between have developed similar moral values. We’ve come a long way, as a country and as a globe, within the last 200 years.
Liberty Leading the People - Eugene Delacroix
Now, when I respond that objective morality is neither absolute, universal, nor invariable, the response often inquires to the definition of objective. Objective means of or relating to a material object, while subjective incorporates personal preference, opinion, belief — all that which exists within the mind. Whenever something leaves the mind and interacts with a material object, subjectivity is lost. The object takes precedence over the subject, as a new object has been formed which includes the subject.
Particular guidelines may determine the way which the object interacts with the subject, and these interactions can be measured. The system as a whole, then, can no longer said to be subjective.
II. Innate Objective Morality and Absolute Reality
I’m in the middle of reading Dr. Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape, a book which has popularized this formulation of objective morality in recent times. I presently agree with him (update: I no longer do) that the study of morality is no different from the study of health. It has long been known, for instance, that humans do possess an innate sense of moral right and wrong. That is, morality developed in humans as an evolutionary adaptation beneficial to the survival of the species. Morality is the evolutionary step-child of consciousness. Science, then, has the ability to analyze and study an individual’s conscious behaviors through brain scans and generate objective results. The pre-frontal cortex, for instance, is the driving force for making moral decisions.
However, this fact alone is not proof that morality is objective, it is only the study of how humans behave when they think about morality. That morality is an evolutionary adaptation is still a valid claim, however. Our acquired evolutionary morals can be studied objectively as they the product of an absolute reality. The roots of morality, our brains, are very much function in an objective nature. As such, it should be taken with a spoonful of sugar as initial evidence for objective morality.
Similarly, and to repeat: when considering an objective morality, moral claims are said to be contextually absolute. That is, within a defined context, there exist absolute right and wrong answers to moral questions. These contexts are not subjectively chosen as a result of an absolute reality.
III. The Science of Morality
Objective morality will ultimately lie as a truth in the world, like thermodynamics or psychology, and not just in our conscious behavior. Harris argues that morality “should be considered an underdeveloped branch of science.” If there are standards which govern morality, and if it is possible to measure these scientifically, then morality is objective.
Objective morality is a theory, much like those of linguistics, which says morality is something that exists in the world, and can be investigated with science. It is a type morality that exists in physical properties in the world which can be observed via experimental methods.This is the crux of objective morality.
The logical points regarding its objectivity are as follows:
- Morality is the concern with the welfare of conscious beings.
- The welfare of a conscious being exists in the physical properties of the brain and body, because consciousness exists in the brain and body.
- Physical properties of the brain and body can be observed.
It reinforces our innate sense of right and wrong, and helps us understand our behavior more deeply. Now we can produce reasons as to why particular behaviors are frowned upon. Further, it has the ability to predict which behaviors will maximize well-being, and which behaviors may naturally be eliminated. The science of morality places evolution into our own hands, giving us greater autonomy and freedom as humans.
Watch Harris present his case for objective morality here:
IV. Moral Standard of Conscious Well-Being
With theism, an absolute standard of morality is held through the decree of God. Certain moral guidelines in addition to these absolute moral laws are given. In order for something to be rationally objective, it must relate in some way to an object, a measurable and physical object.
There have been several attempts to propose a rationally objective standard, often coming from a utilitarian perspective. John Stuart Mill’s mantra “the greatest good for the greatest number” is very beneficial to understanding principled morality, much like the categorical imperative; yet it is not complete. Utility has an object in happiness, but this is very difficult to measure. As a note of caution, making inter-personal utility comparisons is very difficult. Does this critique of Mill have the same impact on Harris’ theory? Perhaps, but on the flip side of the coin, is harm is much more easy to measure than well-being? A proposed standard of conscious well-being should take into account both harm and utility, to the greatest extent possible.
V. Conclusion
Objective morality has its imperative strength in the ability to condemn behaviors with empirical data. Objective morality suggests that you must understand morality, and violate it regardless of the fact, to be morally wrong. Objective morality is a principled morality by which science can determine moral values. It can guarantee our well-being if put into practice.
I urge you to think about morality, to think about philosophy, and to realize that this is perhaps the best of all possible worlds.
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes,
D
