But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?
...
If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.
The author apparently hasn't worked out a basic contradiction in these statements; first claiming that morality is our "creation", then declaring that it "lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures."
Of course, if morality "lies in our nature", then man has not created morality; it is simply something he was born with. It would be much like claiming that man created his intelligence, his ability to see and his ten fingers and ten toes.
A common debating tactic by theists is to point out that without a Divine source there is no real basis for obeying our moral impulses. A few atheists, when challenged on this, simply concede the argument and grant that according to their philosophy there is no basis for morality. This is very rare though. It is much more common that they simply do not see the problem.
This is Hudgin's problem. He wants us to believe that the source of morality is ourselves. "We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements."
I'll, disregard the part about evolution (partly because I think his point here regarding some fundamentalists' motivation for rejecting it is probably correct, and mostly because it is not relevant to my point). Hudgins is saying here that there need be no spiritual basis for morality; that the source is "our own human nature" and that this is enough.
The raises the question of what to do with someone with no or very few moral impulses. If there is no morality external to man's nature, then on what grounds do we judge the morality of a man who does not posess this trait? If morality is simply part of man's nature, then what makes one man's nature better than another? We would have to appeal to something outside man to make the call.
This is generally not a problem, since nearly all men acknowledge virtually the same morality, with the deviations among cultures and individuals being in the details. Examples of people with no sense of morality are very rare. But when they appear there is no means of measuring the "rightness" of one man's nature without an appeal to some kind of objective standard outside of man.
I'm not using this argument to prove the existence of God, because I don't think it does, but it is very problematic for those who claim that no source of morality external to man's nature is needed.
Hudgins is saying here that there need be no spiritual basis for morality; that the source is "our own human nature" and that this is enough.No, we need to appeal to something outside this man to make the call. He's a sociopath. The very concept of a moral principle is alien to him.The raises the question of what to do with someone with no or very few moral impulses. If there is no morality external to man's nature, then on what grounds do we judge the morality of a man who does not posess this trait? If morality is simply part of man's nature, then what makes one man's nature better than another? We would have to appeal to something outside man to make the call.
This is generally not a problem, since nearly all men acknowledge virtually the same morality, with the deviations among cultures and individuals being in the details. Examples of people with no sense of morality are very rare. But when they appear there is no means of measuring the "rightness" of one man's nature without an appeal to some kind of objective standard outside of man.No, the standard just has to be based on something objective. The objective basis for morality is that we are all members of the same species.I'm not using this argument to prove the existence of God, because I don't think it does, but it is very problematic for those who claim that no source of morality external to man's nature is needed.
See, morality is all about principles. The purpose of having a moral code is to sustain the kind of society where you can flourish. This has nothing to do with ad-hoc, spur of the moment calculations of what will profit you in the immediate term. Everyone knows what actions would profit them in the immediate sense. Knock me unconsious & steal my purse? Of course; that would profit you immediately. That kind of calculation is a no-brainer. What morality is all about is deciding on what principles of behavior to live by.
A sociopath is incapable of thinking in terms of moral principles. So the question of morality really doesn't even seriously enter his head. The only really relevant question is for the rest of society: What do we do with a person like this?
Thanks for the comment. I hope you stick around these threads for a while. It'll raise the level of discussion. :-)