Atheistic Morality

Only one more observation about the Salon article discussed in the last several posts.  Part of what the new radical heroes of atheism attempt to accomplish according to the Salon article is to begin constructing a basis for morality without reference to God. 

You can, of course, see the problem confronting atheists.  If we are simply an aggregation of chemicals and consciousness is only an accidental by product of the way in which the chemicals are arranged, life has no purpose and no meaning.  If our lives are without purpose or meaning nothing that we do or say matters.  If nothing that we do or say matters no basis exists for preferring one set of actions over another.  If no such preference exists, the only constraint on our actions is our physical limitation: anything we are capable of doing we may do. No constraint on any activity exists unless that constraint is imposed by forces external to the individual.

If any advantage exists to the individual in taking an action, any rational individual will take that action unless he is physically constrained.  Evaluating whether an advantage exists will involve evaluating the consequences of the proposed action such as prison or effects on relationships etc.   Morality involves restrictions on actions based not on physical limitations (what can be done) but based on limitations concerned with value judgments (what should be done).  Because in the atheists' view we are simply aggregations of chemicals our being provides us no guidance about what should be done. 

The authors described in the Salon article disagree as summarized by the author of the article "our moral life is also a natural (evolved) phenomenon, not rooted in any divine realm or mind. In this sense, the details of evolution teach us how to live together without any reference to God. Nothing is put in his place, because nothing is needed."  So what exactly to the "details of evolution" teach us about living together?  Well, according to the author ("Rules to Live By" in his formulation) the answer may be that 1) behaviors that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population, 2) behaviors that increase cooperation,  and 3) behaviors that increase trust, as opposed to actions based on assertions of authority (as an aside the author of this particular theory advocates reducing "the power of the state and devolve our lives into parishes, computer networks, clubs and teams, self-help groups and small businesses—'everything small and local.'” which sounds an awful lot like what one might call a "conservative society" at least in the contemporary notion of conservatism.  But earlier in the article the author claimed that according to one of these heroes "some forms of social life are less moral than others; that conservative societies have higher rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography" thus at least implying that conservative societies are less moral than contrasting (presumably progressive) societies "whose members are allowed to maximize themselves and others."  This is all very confusing because none of the "heroes" are cited as positing that divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography are either morally prohibited or the result of immoral behavior so why these outcomes would be indicators of a less moral society is a puzzle.)

These notions completely lack properties we traditionally look for in moral guidelines: guidance about how to act in circumstances where actions are not legally dictated or constrained.  What does it mean to say that moral actions are those that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population?   This leads only to a popularity contest.  Notions of what well-being is and what actions might increase well-being are notoriously difficult to identify and nigh impossible to implement.   Does total well-being increase when people are generally thinner for example?  If so, are we morally compelled to force people to lose weight even though such actions infringe on an individual's ability to choose? 

Morality then merely reflects popular attitudes of the day.  What is immoral today becomes moral overnight.  At the turn of the century it was generally thought that sex before marriage decreased the well-being of most people.  That moral judgment derived from the common (at the time) belief that God through the ten commandments and other scriptures had dictated the proper moral framework for sexual interaction.  Today under the new moral framework sex before marriage has lost any stigma of immorality. 

In the 1990's the majority of people in Ruwanda (Hutu's) decided that the well being of that majority would be increased by the slaughter of the Tutsi's.  Was that a moral or an immoral decision?  If it was immoral what made it so?  Was it immoral because of the number of Tutsi's?  So, for example if the Tutsi's had comprised only 1% of the population rather than a much larger percentage?  Was it immoral because the rest of the world did not agree with the Hutu's?  What if the rest of the world did agree?  Under the "increasing well-being" standard the Hutu's actions would be morally acceptable.

All of these proposed moral standards suffer from the same defect.  With a moral code based on majority rule no one and nothing is safe.  Is that really what we mean by a moral standard?

But is even worse than it appears because on what basis do we decide that "majority rule" is the proper basis for formulating morality in the first place.  Why isn't any other basis for deciding what is moral just as legitimate?  Without God, that is without a moral force separate and apart from humanity and the natural world, man is lost in the wilderness without compass or direction.  Morality becomes whatever a particular group says it is at the moment and losses all meaning.