What best describes our morals: Naturalism or Theism?
What best describes Objective Moral Imperatives?
The Naturalistic Explanation.
If naturalism is true, that is, there is no supernatural reality and no being like God exists, then moral imperatives and duties do not objectively exist.
If naturalism is true, the universe, life and everything evolved over time with no inherent teleology – but for the sake of the argument, I grant naturalism can explain sufficiently the finely tuned universe, life and beings like ourselves.
It is difficult to look retrospectively at what could have been if Christianity hadn’t shaped the world as it did and in particular our culture, intuitions and morals.
Having said that, I wish us to imagine a hypothetical world much like ours, but none of our past history, and assuming the process of evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest is the best explanation of biological diversity. Then like the majority of the species on our planet, these hypothetical creatures should maximise their chances of reproduction, then it shouldn’t be surprising that species that are sentient much like ourselves, should be in a world where the females should want to be impregnated by the fittest and strongest males and the alpha male would have the choicest of the females and any resources available in order to perpetuate the species.
Additionally, it wouldn’t be surprising that the tribes that would inevitably form over time, would grow and would require the tribe to look for more resources, which would inexorably lead to other tribes coming into contact with each other, and competing for resources and tribal wars, where the strongest males take over and make a ‘super’ tribe, where the females are taken to increase breeding stock and the females would want this, as they only want to strongest DNA to mix with.
It isn’t at all clear to me, that cooperation is beneficial, for instance, if ‘Tribe A’ is larger than ‘Tribe B’ and ‘Tribe A’ has stronger, faster and more intelligent males, why is it advantageous to cooperate when they can overpower and kill the males in ‘Tribe B’? It means there are more resources for ‘Tribe A’ and the best of ‘Tribe B’s’ females can be bred to increase the gene pool! And if evolution is true, they (the females) should have evolved to want that!
Furthermore, granting natural selection only selects for survivability fitness, higher cognitive abilities like long term planning, language, mathematics, abstract thought, building, science and agriculture aren’t genetic traits to select for, they are learnt, nor is it clear truth tracking to that degree is necessary for survival, only the ability to notice danger and look for food is sufficient, but even granting that it is necessary, that is only applicable to civilizations that are sufficiently advanced to take advantage of such techniques.
I will concede that the naturalist can transcendentally ground morality through introspection, but it isn’t clear that the current notions of fairness and equality (traditionally Judeo-Christian ethics) would be the result, had Christianity not taken dominance in Rome and the majority of the world. It is likely that whatever the dominant culture was, that would be the zeitgeist.
As the French philosopher Voltaire famously said, “if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
I have tried to show that on naturalism, there isn’t a given standard of morality, it is equally plausible for any number of scenarios that could give radically different moral standards. And, although I can concede that it is possible that through introspection to get a form of morality, it isn’t objective, it is heavily dependent on whatever religion or worldview is dominant at the time.
Additionally, if the naturalist wants to assert morals are a brute fact like other abstract objects, that’ s another philosophical necessity, they are saddled with in their ontology.
It seems to me, we are not in such a world that naturalism seems to imply in my scenario. There seems to be objective moral facts that are true regardless of time, space or culture.
An Argument for God’s grounding of Objective Moral Imperatives.
If God exists, God, as described by some of His attributes would be omniscience and have moral perfection.
Omniscience is the ability to know all true facts.
Moral Perfection in the concept of a Maximally Great Being, states that a being that is maximally perfect or morally perfect is better than a being that is morally suspect; a morally perfect being in relation to his Omniscience is an agent that knows and only does what is best.
2. If proposition Y (Y being some moral imperative) is known to God, then necessarily Y is true.
3. Therefore, if Y is necessarily true, then Y is an objective fact.
1. Is the logical entailment of what it would be like to be omniscient, for an omniscient being to not know a fact, would be a contradiction.
2. Follows from 1. If the proposition Y is true, then an omniscient being would know that fact necessarily.
3. Follows logically and necessarily from 1. & 2. Facts by definition are not subjective or open to speculation but are true throughout space and time.
In my argument, I maintain that there are only two moral imperatives that are binding, from which all other moral duties derive meaning. The first and most fundamental is to Love and know God -this has widespread scriptural support e.g. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:34-46. The second is similar in that we must love everyone else as ourselves. All other moral duties are subordinate and shaped by these moral imperatives.
It is difficult to imagine a world of immense cruelty and evil, if everyone truly loved each other and did the best they could to help and sustain one another.
Conclusion
The question isn’t who explains morality, it’s who best explains it?
It is important to recognise that every worldview has brute or necessary facts just given in their ontology. However, some brute facts are less parsimonious and more ad hoc. It is important not to multiple necessities.
Do you burden evolution to an ever-ending list of things it just so happens to explain?
A necessary brute fact, just given in your ontology?
Or like me, do you take it that a necessary, omniscient and morally perfect being best described as God designed it that way for moral agents like ourselves to live the best life possible?
Comments
Post a Comment