At George Mason we are fortunate to have some bright, curious young Catholics that meet each Thursday to discuss sundry philosophical topics. Recently, we turned our examination to the foundations of a universal morality. I posed the question listed above as the title to this post: Can there be any binding moral law without God? If one subscribes to a naturalist/materialist philosophy, can they still make moral statements that are universally binding? Is an atheist justified in prohibiting the most heinous crimes on any basis besides that it displeases him or her?
I believe that the answer is “no”. I cannot see any way of thrusting a moral imperative upon another without admitting some external being that holds us to account. Upon voicing this view at our discussion group, it was met with general disagreement. Surely, several attendees argued, Aristotle and Aquinas were correct in positing that God instills an innate moral compass in each human person. Certainly Revealed Truth is unnecessary to discover human nature, from which we can infer universal moral norms. You may well be responding in a similar fashion.
However, my question does not concern whether universal moral laws are knowable without God, but whether or not even the most fundamental of these may be compulsory. Sure, most would agree that murder, the intentional taking of innocent life, is “wrong”. It is opposed to most every person’s moral code. However, if there is not some external being that holds everyone to account, what does such a moral statement mean? To my mind, it can only mean that “I do not like murder”, or “we do not like murder”. Even proving that murder harms the murderer and that it is therefore against his or her own best interest will not suffice to enforce the moral imperative. Indeed, any ostensible justification for a moral law that lacks an external, superior being can simply be responded to with, “so what?â€.
My analysis, if correct, leads to serious implications. Any philosophy that lacks a creator also lacks the force required to make objective moral statements that are universally binding. The appearance of innate natural law alone is insufficient. This leaves the atheistic humanist with a difficult dilemma: that every possible moral statement he or she might make can be ultimately reduced to a personal preference for a certain type of behavior. Therefore, either accept that a being exists beyond the material world that, in a sense, enforces a moral code, or accept the absence of any binding morality.
What do you think? Is my analysis accurate, or have I missed something?
10 responses so far ↓
1 John // Mar 23, 2007 at 3:59 am
I’m no philosopher, but that sounds logical enough to me. I agree.
2 JD Jade // Mar 23, 2007 at 7:44 am
Morality is a human concept based upon individual and group rights.
If rights are not respected then they are not rights.
I deeply respect your right of belief because I want that right for myself.
I have no respect for your belief itself.
You violate the right of belief for myself and others when you propose enforced “moral laws” based on false Gods.
Your God has failed to make anything “compulsory” or even to prove to the majority of people that God exists.
I challenge you to prove God exists.
I offer $100,000 for the proof.
See http://www.GodsReward.com for details.
3 Dave // Mar 23, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Obligatory book recommendation: _After Virtue_ by Alisdair MacIntyre
4 blaha // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:26 am
Instead of throwing a book title at you, I’ll try to [briefly] take up your train of thought…
You are somewhere near Immanuel Kant who argued for the existence of
God based upon the necessity of a guarantor of the universal moral law, though from a more positive point of view: the categorical imperative which insists that one must treat people as ends, not means, and consequently that truly moral action is utterly disinterested, can only have as its terminus infinite bliss, which only an infinite God can bestow. That is a very rough outline that I am constructing somewhat second-hand. see also Dostoyevsky via Ivan Karamazov: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.”
I think the weak spot in your analysis hangs upon your idea of a “binding” law. Laws can be binding in many ways, not the least of which is a social contract by which persons agree to submit their right of self-preservation to a common authority who then guarantees that right. This is Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. two of whom were materialists & had no belief in God. They nonetheless offered some possibilities for how moral laws could be binding, though they were restricted to those laws which anyone with an enlightened self-interest would agree to — typically a much smaller range than what a typical “creator morality” would allow for.
While this does not provide the rock solid grounding you are looking for, it does move beyond personal preference to the common governing authority. It also begins to deal in universals - at the very least, “life is good, death is bad”, which may open doors to other fruitful discussions…
5 Al // Mar 27, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were all at least deists, and believed in God. True, all were fairly anti-Catholic and not orthodox Christians, but this does not make them atheists either.
Perhaps you were thinking of Hume?
6 Chris // Mar 29, 2007 at 2:39 am
Mr Jade,
Your challenge to prove that God exists will require a separate post, and I hope to find a chance to do so soon.
I agree that morality, in a sense, stems from people’s rights in the shape of corresponding responsibilities of others not to intrude on those rights. As for your assertion that rights depend for their existence on their being respected, I am a bit confused. How many people must respect a “right†for it to indeed qualify as a “right� Everyone? One person? A simple majority of greater than 50% of all people?
As for your statement that you “have no respect for your (my) belief itself,†do you mean that you believe it is false? And do you refer to my conclusion, that without God all moral statements can only be statements of personal preference? Or do you refer to what you have inferred to be my position, that God in fact does establish morality and hold people to account?
Another possibility is that you simply dislike my argument and its conclusion, whether it is true or false. There are certainly things that are true that I wish were not, such as the event of the Holocaust.
Moreover, how does my belief, that is my affirmation of a proposition, violate your “right of beliefâ€? Has your “right of belief†somehow conferred on me a responsibility to not believe whatever it is you think has violated your rights? I must confess that I am terribly confused as to how my affirmation of a proposition could violate your “rightâ€.
7 Ben // Mar 30, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I think you can have a moral system without God. I would disagree with the above poster concerning Kant. I do not believe that the Categorical Imperative articulated by Kant is dependent upon the existence of God in its logical formation.
However;
What I think is a much more interesting question is can you have mercy without God? I think the answer here is clearly that you can’t. Furthermore, mercy is not only wholly contingent upon God, it is contingent upon the Trinitarian God. Only in the Trinity can you maintain Justice in Mercy, because the infinite recompense has been paid.
8 Ben // Mar 30, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Sorry, the comment above should have read…
“…mercy is not wholly contingent on just any God, like the God of the Deists, it is necessarily contingent upon the Trinitarian God.”
9 Sara // Apr 3, 2007 at 8:25 pm
(If God doesn’t exist) Everything is permitted! Dostoevsky’s genius formulation of this in Brothers Karamazov.
10 RG // Jun 20, 2007 at 8:11 pm
So what role do laws play in a moral imperative?
Religion seems to provide a deterrent by the threat of punishment in hell and reward of heaven to naive minds.
the same can be and is achieved in any civilized society by the civil laws. The reason a person with no strong conscience does not commit a rape in public is NOT because it is forbidden in religion BUT because he will be arrested immediately and thrown to jail or sent to death row.
Leave a Comment