....but here's yet another post about religion/morality. Sorry. Truly sorry. It's just that if I don't put this here, then I'll never remember it, and I think it's important enough to save.
The conversation was taken from a transcript posted on Reddit. I think I agree with what Matt's saying, but it's not one of those things that you can just decide in a day, you know? I like what he's saying about secular morality vs. religious morality, as I've felt for quite a few years that I'm much more moral than I was as a Christian. Anyways, here it is:
18 points ago (18|0)Below
is a transcript of part of Matt's discussion with Eric (Atheist
Experience 803) discussing objective morality. (M=Matt, D=Don, E=Eric
from Sacramento)
For more detailed information, search for "The Superiority of Secular
Morality," a presentation Matt has been giving for several years. Many
versions of it are available on-line, in shorter and longer forms.
(This transcript begins partway through the discussion, after Eric
has tried to make the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, and Matt
had made efforts to get Eric to give a definition of morality that did
not include God.)
M: What is morality? Morality is the system by which we evaluate the
consequences of actions to determine whether or not we should consider
them good actions or bad or right or wrong. Anything along those lines
would be a good definition of morality. But if you’re going to begin
with “Morality is God’s nature,” we’re done.
D: Keep In mind here that you’re calling an atheist show, and
atheists, kind of by definition, don’t believe in God. So you’re kind of
hanging this on something we don’t believe in and we have yet to see
any strong evidence for. So it’s kind of going nowhere from the very
beginning.
E: I’ll assume your definition of morality, Matt. How about that?
M: You’ll assume my definition of morality?
E: Yes.
M: Okay.
E: So morality is immaterial and it’s a thought. You can’t have a
thought without a mind. So obviously there must be an objective,
immaterial mind that produces this objective, immaterial thought (last
word unclear).
M: Ah, wrong. See, I can evaluate the consequences with respect to
any value, even an arbitrary one, to determine whether or not it’s
consistent with that value. So why do we have certain values and not
others? And these values, they don’t exist as ‘things.’ You’re right. We
are using minds to conceive [them], but we are evaluating real things.
We are physical beings in a physical universe and so my actions have
consequences to myself and to others. And I can evaluate those
consequences with respect to well-being, which is what morality is
really about, well-being.
D: And I would say, too, that morality is based in human nature,
which is something maybe not tangible but it’s something real. We all
share a certain evolutionary history. We all share a lot of
commonalities like ‘We don’t want to be harmed. We don’t want to be
hurt. We don’t want to be killed.’ These sorts of things.
M: And I won’t go down that path.
D: You won’t?
M: Because from a purely philosophical standpoint, I’m not going to
appeal to our past. I will say that, as physical beings, there are
truths about our interactions.
D: I bring that out because I can tell you where it comes from. I
can tell you where our morality comes from. It doesn’t necessarily come
from some magic being, right? It comes because humans are working this
out based on our understanding of ourselves. And we’re social animals
and we have to figure out how to get along. That’s where it comes from.
E: Now here’s…
M: Morality, if it’s about anything, it’s about well-being. It’s not necessarily even tied to humans.
E: Now here’s the problem I find with that. If morality is based off of us humans, it’s subjective.
M: No. No, it’s not subjective in that it’s not contingent upon one
mind. If it’s about humanity – which I don’t agree that it is; I think
it’s broader than that and you can talk about it in broader terms – that
doesn’t make the evaluation subjective in the same way that… Take the
game of chess. It has rules. Those rules were arbitrary. They could have
been invented by an individual or by a committee or they could have
been progressively evolved over periods of time playing it. But whatever
the rules are, the evaluation of any move with respect to the rules is
itself objective. You have rules – moral values – and you have an action
– moving a pawn – and if you move a pawn in a way that violates these
rules or that violates, in a simpler sense, the strategy of the goal of
winning the game or not losing the game then that is an objectively bad
move. It is not subjective in the sense that it’s not contingent upon
any mind. It is an evaluation of the consequences with respect to the
values.
E: Okay, but that works if everyone plays nice, according to the
rules of chess. You see, when you’re talking about the well- being…
M: Yes.
E: …of…
M: Yes, if someone is not playing by the rules of chess, okay,
that’s their prerogative. But if we’re talking about chess, we can
evaluate it objectively. We can do the same thing with regard to
morality. If someone doesn’t think that morality is about well-being,
then they’re talking about something different. Just like you were at
the beginning. You think that morality is about God’s nature. I don’t.
So obviously we’re talking about two separate things. But when we get to
the point that we’re talking about the same thing, then it’s no longer
subjective.
E: What objective reason can you give for caring about the
well-being of others? That’s the problem I have with secular morality.
M: I’ve been… Well, see, this is way too big to do on the show. But
I’ve spent years doing a talk on the superiority of secular morality,
because secular moral systems are superior, period. And it’s because
they are the only moral systems. Christianity does not offer a moral
system. It offers moral pronouncements. You can think all day that
morality is about God’s nature, but now you’re just stuck. Because If
your morals come from God’s nature, how is It that you have determined
what God’s nature is?
E: Revelation.
M: Revelation doesn’t do anybody any good. Your revelation may be
different from somebody else’s revelation. This is the problem. When
religious individuals try to attack secular morality, there is not a
single objection that they levy at secular morality that is actually
real and that is resolved by their own system. Because claiming that you
have the insight into what God wants is no different from me claiming
that I have the insight into what morality truly is. We’re at an
impasse. You’ve raised an issue that your system – which isn’t a system
at all – does not solve.
E: I’m going to have to think about that one because I think it
seems like a problem of interpretation. Let me ask you: What objective
reason do you have for caring about well-being?
M: “What objective reasons do we have for caring about well-being?”
Basically, what you’re asking is “Why be moral?” I’m talking about what
morality is. And you’re asking, “Why be moral?”
E: Well, yes. Because if morality is just subjective we can do whatever we want.
M: I’ve already said, first of all, that it’s not subjective. That
if we’re going to talk about morality – and morality is well-being –
then well-being is actually related to physical facts about who we are
and what we do. My actions have certain consequences. Now, why should I
care about that? Because, as Don pointed out, I live in a universe where
I don’t live alone. It is in my best interest, my well-being. It’s kind
of what you… Addressing the issue of well-being, which is what morality
is doing, is in our best interest. Now there are some people that
aren’t going to be convinced of that and that’s just too bad. But now
the question, as I’ve pointed out, has moved from ‘what morality is’ to
‘why should one be moral.’ And the reason one should be moral is because
it is in their best interest, by definition. That’s the reason that we
talk about morality as an assessment of well-being. It’s in your best
interest.
E: I think that’s the very definition of subjective.
M: I’m sorry?
E: I think that’s the very definition of subjective. Subjectively
human. If they don’t, if society doesn’t care about , it seems like
society has to…
M: Look, let me use this example. I’ll spin off of one of Sam
Harris’ analogies. Health is about your physical well-being. And we can
talk about what is and isn’t healthy. And those are objective facts.
What is and isn’t healthy for us, those are objective facts. They’re not
subjective. And they may be slightly different scenarios. For example,
Don might be horribly allergic to something that doesn’t affect me at
all, so it would be unhealthy for him and healthy for me. What we’re
talking about in general, broad terms is what is healthy for human being
is the subject for “health.” Now what you’re asking is “Why should I
care about being healthy?” That’s really what you’re asking is “Why
should anybody care about being healthy?” And my answer is the same,
because it is in their best interest. There’s no obligation for anyone
to care about being healthy. And there’s no obligation for anyone to
care about being moral.
E: But there are many societies that have different moralities.
M: There are many societies that have different opinions about what is or isn’t moral.
E: Well, that’s subjective.
M: No, no, no, no, because it’s just the same as… If there’s a
society that thinks drinking battery acid is healthy, they’re wrong. And
if there’s a society that thinks enslaving people and cutting off,
mutilating, genital mutilation is moral, they’re wrong. They’re welcome
to have their opinions about it, but they’re wrong.
E: So your opinion is objective, but their opinion is subjective.
M: No. I didn’t say that my opinion was objective, Eric.
E: Okay, but when you said… If a society says that drinking battery
acid is wrong, and that’s their opinion that it’s wrong, well, it’s
your opinion that it’s their opinion that it’s wrong.
M: No, it’s not my opinion. Do you think drinking battery acid is good for you?
E: No.
M: Is that just your opinion, or do you have some actual evidence for that?
E: Well, God made battery acid.
M: Oh, you’re done.
No comments:
Post a Comment