IS THERE AN ADEQUATE BASIS, APART FROM GOD, FOR OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH?

Does the rejection of God also entail the rejection of any possible basis for objective moral truth? Atheist and former president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, Ronald A. Lindsay, argues that we do not need God to be good. However, he also understands that it is almost impossible to talk about being good unless there exists an objective good. What, then, can be the basis of this objective good once God is rejected?

Can’t the objective moral good be based upon certain facts like “pain is a bad thing…and people avoid being in pain” or “well-being is a good thing?” Putting aside the question of whether or not these “facts” are correct, Lindsey admits to another problem – What is factually true doesn’t automatically mean that we ought to do something about it. For example, the mere fact that our neighbor is suffering doesn’t require us to do anything about it:

·       The difficulty in deriving moral obligations directly from discrete facts about the world was famously noted by the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who remarked that from a statement about how things are—an “is” statement—we cannot infer a moral norm about how things should be—an “ought” statement.

Lindsay concludes that we cannot logically jump from a fact to a moral obligation: “An “is” statement and an “ought” statement are distinct classes of statements.” Consequently, there is no moral connection between what “is” to what “ought to be,” as there is no moral connection between spilled milk and an obligation to clean it up. Something – an absolute moral directive – is clearly missing from this equation.

After surveying possible foundations for objective moral truth, Lindsay admits:

·       So secular attempts to provide an objective foundation for morality have been … well, less than successful. Does this imply we are logically required to embrace nihilism [the belief that there is no objective moral truth, but just personal inclinations]?

What then is Lindsay’s solution for overcoming nihilism? It seems like more of the same. He claims that “morality is neither objective nor subjective.” Well, what is it? It is “intersubjective,” based upon another “fact” of our common human condition:

·       We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not divine commands. Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around.”

Admittedly, what Lindsay has articulated represents our “norms of the common morality.” However, his solution again wrongly assumes that there is a moral bridge between the facts of our human condition and a moral requirement that we take action to pursue the welfare of the human race.

Meanwhile, other atheists have utterly abandoned the attempt to provide an objective basis for morality. Atheist, humanist, and author of Humanist Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz affirms that pragmatism is the “only” possible justification for morality:

·       How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results. (“Understanding the Times,” 237)

While pragmatic, cost/benefit thinking can serve to justify living morally, pragmatism can just as easily serve evil. Serial killer, Ted Bundy, had confessed to over 30 gruesome murders. He explained his cost/benefit rationale before his execution:

·       “Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” (“Christian Research Journal,” Vol 33, No 2, 2010, 32)

Bundy demonstrated that pragmatism means different things to different people. In fact, it can be argued that pragmatism’s cost/benefit analysis is the lens through which we can best understand human history, not only its high points but also its low ones. Consequently, pragmatism cannot serve as a replacement for objective moral truths.

Besides, if an atheist truly wants to live pragmatically, he will try out living as a Christian. Even atheists admit that such a life offers many pragmatic benefits. Occasionally, they will even confess, “I wish that I could have your faith.” However, in this case, they claim that the truth has to take precedence over any benefits.

For example, Lindsay claims that, even if God does exist, he cannot rationally be the basis for objective moral truth:

·       …we cannot possibly rely on God to tell us what’s morally right and wrong. As Plato pointed out long ago in his dialogue Euthyphro, divine commands cannot provide a foundation for morality…Rules of conduct based on the arbitrary fiats of someone more powerful than us are not equivalent to moral norms. Moreover, it is no solution to say that God commands only what is good. This response presupposes that we can tell good from bad, right from wrong, or, in other words, that we have our own independent standards for moral goodness. But if we have such independent standards, then we don’t need God to tell us what to do. We can determine what is morally right or wrong on our own. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640

In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?" In the first instance, God becomes irrelevant because the good exists apart from God. In the second instance, God’s love for the good is arbitrary, and, therefore, it is not worthy of our moral consideration.

Let me try to restate this: If God DISCOVERS morality, then God is less than God and is unnecessary; if God CREATES morality and then imposes it upon us, He is an arbitrary despot.

What then is the solution? A third option: Morality is not arbitrary or independent of God, because it finds its origin within the Being of God. Besides, it is difficult to argue against God as the Source of objective moral law in favor of our own moral conscience or reason. This is because He has wired us with His own moral truths. Therefore, our conscience and reason is a replica of His. Consequently, when we deny God, we also deny our very nature, conscience and reason, created in His likeness. Therefore, when we follow our God-given moral impulses, we are living in harmony and peace with these implanted truths.

While many concede that objective moral absolutes cannot exist without God, they will deny that moral absolutes, like principles of justice, even exist. This brings us back into the clutches of nihilism.