Morality Does Not Require Religion

Associated Content ^ | April 14, 2007 | G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

Contrary to my usual method, I will presently argue a rather moderate position-but one absolutely essential to the preservation of a free, civil, and tolerant society. My purpose here is not to refute any religion or religion-based system of ethics. Nor is my purpose to dissuade anyone from adhering to a religion or religion-based system of ethics. On the whole, I consider ethics based on religion to have beneficial consequences in this world, and I have found the individuals today who genuinely practice a religious morality to be decent, respectable, trustworthy, and upright persons. Such people are my friends and neighbors, and I consider quality of life in the world to be substantially improved by their presence.

[D-fendr]

Upon which moral foundation does the Constitution stand?

[D-fendr]

It’s impossible to make moral/ethical decisions without some basis or value transcending reason. Hence defined as religious.

This transcendent value may be chosen with awareness, without awareness or accepted as true, self-evident or axiomatic.

But you cannot act if you are forever building conditional reasons.

Rationalists are no exception.

[tpaine]

It was claimed that treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.

I responded: - the premise that a groups "bigger" goal can be gained by treating an unwilling neighbor as a scofflaw makes no sense at all.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely that, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed by majority rule.

Upon which moral foundation does the Constitution stand?

The moral foundation based on our golden rule, which I consider common to all rational men.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your reply.

the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely that, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed..

This is still incomplete. What is the source of these rights?

I'm contending that rationalism alone cannot be the sole basis of moral/ethical decisions for humans. If it were we would be frozen in inaction. Rationalism can only be a tool used once the foundational absolute values are determined. Hitler was very rational. It wasn't his reason that was at fault, but his values. His immorality was not due to faulty reasoning. The same with Marx.

Our superiority to these men and systems is not in our reasoning capability, but something that transcends reason.

[tpaine]

Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely that, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed by majority rule.

This is still incomplete.

Well, that sentence is certainly not intended to to be definitive, if that's what you mean.

What is the source of these rights?

We have reason and free will, thus our inalienable rights are self evident.

I'm contending that rationalism alone cannot be the sole basis of moral/ethical decisions for humans. If it were we would be frozen in inaction.

Were rational prehistoric men "frozen in inaction", because they did not have developed religious concepts? Very arguable.

Rationalism can only be a tool used once the foundational absolute values are determined.

Man wasn't rational before he developed/determined "foundational absolute values"? I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Hitler was very rational. It wasn't his reason that was at fault, but his values. His immorality was not due to faulty reasoning. The same with Marx.

Here are Arthur Koestlers brilliant words about fanatics/socialists:

"- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. -"

Thus the historical record confronts us with the paradox that the tragedy of man originates not in an excess of individual self-assertiveness, ['immorality'] - but in a malfunction of the group tendencies of our species; - "an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."

Our superiority to these men and systems is not in our reasoning capability, but something that transcends reason.

Our superiority to these men and systems is indeed in our reasoning capability, - our ability to transcend 'devotion to a cause', - and instead live and let live, according to our self-evident golden rule - and our Constitution.

[D-fendr]

Long reply, and my thanks for it. But it confuses my point immensely. My fault no doubt.

Well. So let’s illustrate the conundrum of basing morality solely upon reason.

Why (reason needed here) is “doing unto others as we would...” better than - of greater value - than not?

[tpaine]

Our superiority to these men [Hitler/Marx] and systems is indeed in our reasoning capability, - our ability to transcend 'devotion to a cause', - and instead live and let live, according to our self-evident golden rule [do onto others] - and to our Constitution.

So let's illustrate the conundrum of basing morality solely upon reason.
Why (reason needed here) is 'doing unto others as we would...' better than - of greater value - than not?

Why is following our golden rule/Constitution, of greater value - than not doing so? Odd, self evident question. Liberty is of greater value to men than socialism, - obviously.

Why do you see living under our constitutional rule of law as any sort of "conundrum"/charade?

[G. Stolyarov II]

Thank you for your comments. They have been among the most intelligent and civil on this thread thus far, and I commend you for your exemplary demeanor; I also appreciate your perspective.

It seems that some of this issue regards the definition of morality. Some Christians *define* morality with respect to their God, which makes it quite easy for them to claim that anybody who does not believe in their God is somehow immoral.

Yet this is not what most other people - including some Christians - consider to be morality. For them and for me, morality is entirely a function of a person's *behavior*, and as such has nothing at all to do with the adjectives a person attaches to himself (Christian, atheist, conservative, socialist, etc.) or the kinds of sound vibrations his mouth produces in air. The morality of a person, under this view, is solely a function of the way that person intentionally affects his own life and the life of other human beings - and in the real world, a person's words and philosophical beliefs have far less of a role in this than most would think.

For the record, I am as staunchly opposed to socialism as one can get -- as even a cursory examination of my writings would show. Only in the contemporary United States is the mistake of equating a devotion to political liberty with Christianity made. Virtually at no other time or place in history have the two doctrines been seen as indistinguishable from one another.

Let this be a warning to anyone else reading this thread: if some elements of the right continue to marginalize and demonize people who *agree with them politically* but do not hold their religious views, then I can guarantee that the conservative movement will be dead, and freedom will be dead in this country quite soon.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

You wrote: "Once natural law is abandoned, as it has been, then man is without a moral compass."

I, for one, believe firmly in the existence of a natural law - even though I do not believe in God. I simply see the natural law as inherent in the *natures of things themselves*. These natures were always there and did not have to be "conferred" upon things or upon people by any entity, human or divine.

I think it is quite possible to have natural law without God, and part of the aim of this essay has been to establish some foundations of such a natural law in ethics.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

[D-fendr]

"living under our constitutional rule of law" is not the condundrum. A moral/ethical system derived solely using reason is the condundrum.

This far you haven't solved it.

Why is following our golden rule/Constitution, of greater value - than not doing so?

Odd, self evident question.

"Self-evident" (as I listed eariler) is axiomatic, assumed, not derived from deductive, or even inductive, reasoning.

Liberty is of greater value to men than socialism, - obviously.

Then obviously you can give me the reason for it? Or some attempt at a logical syllogism?

To belabor the point, if I ask you "why is x better than y?" and you answer: "Obviously," You haven't used reason at all.

[D-fendr]

Why do you believe natural law is good?

[G. Stolyarov II]

You asked: "Why do you believe natural law is good?"

The word "good" needs to be defined in some specific context. That is, whenever it is used, it is essential to ask: "Good - to whom and for what?"

So, to whom is natural law good? It is good to human beings, because by following the natural law, human beings can achieve the most peaceful, prosperous, fulfilling, and happy lives conceivable - even by *their own definitions* of these terms. That is, if all honest people were aware of the natural law and followed it, they would restrospectively conclude that doing so improved their lives.

For what is the natural law good? It is good for minimizing conflicts among men, advancing technological progress, cultivating mutual goodwill and understanding, and establishing material and intellectual improvements in all spheres of life. Ask yourself the question: would you like to live in a world where all men respected the natural law, or in a world where they did not? If you prefer the former alternative, then this *by itself* is enough to conclude that natural law is good.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

[D-fendr]

thanks, in order to build your ethical system, you still need more. Your definitions still have conditional statements for which you haven't proven the condititions true. Specificallly:

by following the natural law, human beings can achieve the most peaceful, prosperous, fulfilling, and happy lives conceivable - even by *their own definitions..minimizing conflicts among men, advancing technological progress..., etc..

Your assertion natural law is good because it achieves these results. Obviously, the truth of your statement is conditional - based on whether these are good.

You have merely moved your absence of "proof" to another point, which you haven't proven, or even as yet given reason, that these are good.

I too believe these are "good." in general. However if we are not to rely on the sphere of religion (absolute/non-conditional - with or without a diety), we have to stick to the rational, the only tool we have in your stated method is reason/logic.

That means you still have to provide the proof for these values upon which you've conditioned the truth of the value of 'natural law'.

In order to follow your stated method, you need to give the reason why, for example: "advancing technological progress is better than not advancing technological progress."

We may or may not agree on whether this value is "good," but either way, a system solely based reason, requires more.

[D-fendr]

I left out:

"…If you prefer the former alternative this *by itself* is enough to conclude that natural law is good."

That I prefer something is proof that it is right and good? Can a valid ethical system reduce to "what most prefer = ethical"? (The logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.)

Ethics requires establishing values of right and wrong, not preferences.

[tpaine]

Our superiority to these men [Hitler/Marx] and systems is indeed in our reasoning capability, - our ability to transcend 'devotion to a cause', - and instead live and let live, according to our self-evident golden rule [do onto others] - and to our Constitution.

Why do you see living under our constitutional rule of law as any sort of "conundrum"/charade?

"living under our constitutional rule of law" is not the condundrum.

Good, we agree that living under our constitutional rule of law is not a charade.

A moral/ethical system derived solely using reason is the condundrum.

Your claim that it's a charade to use reason is simply another unsupported opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is following our golden rule/Constitution, of greater value - than not doing so?
Yours is an odd, self evident question.
Liberty is of greater value to men than socialism, - obviously - as we see from our own history.

Then obviously you can give me the reason for it? Or some attempt at a logical syllogism?
To belabor the point, if I ask you "why is x better than y?" and you answer: "Obviously," You haven't used reason at all.

"Obviously", your whole point is indeed, - to belabor points others have made.
- These circular discussions bore me. Get some new ploys.

[D-fendr]

Assertion isn’t proof.

It’s also inconsistent to claim one’s superiority is in a capability one is so loathe to use.

thank you for your replies.

[G. Stolyarov II]

You wrote: “That means you still have to provide the proof for these values upon which you’ve conditioned the truth of the value of ‘natural law’.”

The values which I have listed are good because they are ultimately conducive to securing the life of every human being and creating conditions where this life in increasingly less subject to the perils of both the natural world and the world of other men.

So, if we take my argument far enough, we will find that it hinges on the following proposition: “Living life is superior to not living life.”

This is a proposition which reason itself compels all human beings to agree to — because it is a proposition which they implicitly embrace in the process of arguing or even in the process of living itself. If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live, then we have our basis for a rational, secular morality.

I illustrate why this is in “The Implicit Decision to Live: The Immorality of Suicide and Forced Termination of Life”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280318/the_implicit_decision_to_live_the_immorality.html

If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law — which brings all these about — is good.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

[ladyinred]

Morality does not exist without God.

I have to agree with you. It seems to me that morality comes from God in the first place.

[D-fendr]

Well done! You have had the discipline to follow your conditional statements on out to:

"“Living life is superior to not living life.”

However..

You then add your conditionals for it: "because it is a proposition which they implicitly embrace in the process of arguing or even in the process of living itself."

And further, a summary or rephrasing, I believe:

"If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live, then we have our basis for a rational, secular morality."

Then working your way back to the intitial value statment: "If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law — which brings all these about — is good."

I sincerely applaud your discipline and effort and reply here.

My reply on your propositions:

"If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live..

I believe this is a false premise. People can and do logically choose non-life. We need not limit this to suicide, we could choose T. Paine as an example of one whose value of life was conditioned by a higher value. Or from Christian ethics: "No greater love hath man than this.."

So, working further, your premise:

“Living life is superior to (better than) not living life.” is not proven. For the reason above. Under some conditions, it's not.

Now, you could choose to make the statement non-conditional, thus:

All other conditions being equal, "Living life is better than not living life.”

This would make it a non-conditional, also termed an absolute, truth statement. This would remove the need to continue proving each new condition used, each "because."

However you would leave the realm of pure reason/logic at this point and accept as an ultimate value as true which you haven't proven using the self-selected limits of a rational, secular morality.

In summary, I believe your proof of "Life is Good" fails because it's premises fail. However, you may see by now, that even it they did not, even HAD you succeeded in proving "Life is Good" because.. you would still need to prove the supporting conditional statements. For example:

If I were to accept that "it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live," as true. This would not finish your task.

That something is logically impossible to escape choosing does not make it, in itself, "good" or "right" in ethical terms. This has not been proven logically.

I do think that all ethical systems eventually reach the point of "Life is Good". But it is the unique burden of a system that claims solely to be rational and secular to continue on. And provide the proof.

I really do appreciate your continuation here and look forward to any reply you have to mine.

[tpaine]

Good grief, even the basic logic of: "If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law which brings all these about is good" - is questioned.

Where is the morality in such religiously based nihilistic/destructive thinking?