Moral Relativism

It is true that atheism doesn't set people up well to resist the intellectual pathologies found in the extremes of postmodernism and nihilism; these philosophies are like corrosive acids liable to eat away at not only one's grasp on rationality and truth. but also of one's morality. The only defence are the deep heart felt instincts supporting good community which, of course, many atheists feel as strongly as anyone else (See Romans 2:14-16). But other than having the status of being identified as strong social instincts there is little more these instincts have to commend themselves to the atheist world view other than in these social relativist terms; any cosmic absoluteness to morality (and even rationality) is in the final analysis completely lost. 

In this connection I was intrigued by a post on the de facto intelligent design web site "Uncommon Descent" by its supremo Barry Arrington in which he posted his response to the comments of two atheists named as Ed George and Seversky. These two talk about morality in the context of their atheism.  Here's the first part of Arrington's post: 

ARRINGTON: Ed George asserted that morality is based on societal consensus.  Upright Biped utterly demolished that argument.  See here.  Seversky and Ed tried to respond to UB’s arguments.

Let’s start with Sev:

"I, like everyone else here, would also want [the rape] to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality."

MY COMMENT: Well done Seversky! Empathy is the ultimate (God given) rationale for morality as we shall see. It is this rationale which motivates the succinct expression of moral code embodied in the Golden Rule. One can hardly complain if Severersky carries out a thoroughgoing implementation of this rule (which of course no human being, apart from one, can do perfectly). But for a thoroughgoing atheist there is no ultimate reason why this Golden Rule should have any claim to an absolute status; after all, it is quite likely that on the basis of a minimalist survival ethic one can imagine social contexts where putting self first may be a "better" strategy (whatever "better" means in this context). Ironically an unbridled free market may illustrate the potential for moral perversity in a world without moral absolutes: For example some claim that rampant selfish self-betterment is supposed to lead to a wealth "trickle-down" affect, an affect which from a survival point of view benefits everyone. 

Nevertheless Barry has a good starter here for sharing and promoting  a common moral rationale and perhaps discussing what the origins of this rationale might be. But unfortunately he blows his chance:

ARRINGTON: This is a muddled mashup of two of the materialists’ favorite dodges.  First Sev appeals to empathy as the basis for morality.  He completely ignores several problems with this argument, including:

1.  Mere feelings are a very flimsy ground for a moral system.

2.  Some people do not have empathy (we call them sociopaths).  If empathy is the basis for morality, a sociopath has no basis for morality.

MY COMMENT:  Contrary too what Arrington is claiming here the existence of consciousness cognition (which is the context in which feelings have meaning) is the only ground for a moral system as we shall see.

Arrington inadvertently acknowledges the crucial moral role played by empathy in his reference to sociopaths; when it's not present things go badly wrong. Sociopaths have something about them which means they have no regard for the feelings of conscious cognition. To get an inkling of what it may be like to be sociopathic think of some of those realistic "shoot-em-up" computer games: Human game players have no compunction in shooting up gaming entities simply because there is no consciousness cognition to empathise with! In a sense human beings who live good moral lives outside the games environment turn into "sociopaths" of sorts when they play computer games in so far as they have no empathy (and rightly so!) for the simulated beings. These simulated entities have no consciousness and therefore no feelings. So consciousness changes everything. Perhaps it is not surprising that some atheists are inclined to deny the reality of the first person perspective of conscious cognition (as Arrington well knows - See here). For some atheists the reality of the first person perspective has just too much mystique; if there really is such a strange thing as a first person perspective inaccessible to third person observation then who knows perhaps there's even a......

But although empathy is the ultimate rationale for morality there is a difference between empathy and moral systems. Moral systems are there to best serve a society of conscious cognitions and therefore with out conscious cognition moral systems are without meaning, goals and purpose. Therefore moral systems are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. For if human beings, like the facades of computer game entities, are a mere simulacrum with no first person perspective behind them then moral systems are purposeless and meaningless. A moral system is a code of behaviour that is cognisance of people's feelings in the context of community,

Moral systems, however, can be intellectually taxing: It is difficult for humans to anticipate all the ramifications of their behaviour in a social context and come to a reliable opinion on which moral systems best serve a community of interacting conscious entities. The moral challenge humans face therefore resolves itself into two challenges; firstly the challenge of raising a sufficient empathetic concern for other conscious entities and secondly the epistemic challenge of having to work out which moral system best serves community interests: Human beings, of course, are only capable of  imperfectly  responding to both challenges.  But even if we assume that a community is composed of perfectly empathetic beings anxious to get a moral system in place that best serves the community (clearly an idealistic assumption) there remains the problem that human epistemic limitations will imply they are unlikely to discover a moral code that best serves community.

The Golden rule is a neat one liner which sums up the spirit of moral systems but the complexity of community means that the devil is going to be in the detail; the system of moral code that best serves a community of conscious beings is going to be only fully understood if  one has divine omniscience. 

After Arrington's weak start, however, things improve:

ARRINGTON: 3.  Even for those with empathy, Sev offers no reason why they should not suppress their feelings if they believe the pleasure of their act exceeds the cost of the act in pangs of empathy.

Next Sev appeals to the Golden Rule as a ground for morality.  Well, Sev, it certainly is.  Yet, materialism offers no ground on which to adhere to the Golden Rule as opposed to any other rule such as “might makes right” or “if it feels good do it.”  Sev demonstrates yet again that no sane person actually acts as if materialism is true.

Sev, if you have to act as if your most deeply held metaphysical commitment is false as you live your everyday life, perhaps you should reexamine your metaphysical commitments.

MY COMMENT: Arrington's third point above does make headway: On what basis, other than ephemeral instinct, should anyone be troubled by the consciousness of other human beings. and instead live for self? For if as some atheists maintain consciousness is just an illusion constructed from a complex social interface why bother with it and instead just play as if one is in a computer game? But contrariwise I suppose all said and done an atheist could still claim that whilst moral instincts and code have no real absolute cosmic significance this doesn't stop people behaving instinctively with empathy and using the Golden rule. Let's hope that remains the case..... there is an unfortunate human history of principles based on bad ideology over ruling compassion all the way from the Nazis, through Christian fundamentalists to the French and October revolutions.

ARRINGTON: Now let’s go to Ed, who writes:

. . . UB’s question is not worth responding to

Ed states that a person who lives by himself has no moral obligation to anyone who venture near him.  UB points out that if that is true, Ed has just given said loner a license to rape any woman who ventures too near without breaking any moral injunction.  Instead of abandoning his screamingly stupid assertion, Ed pretends UB’s extension of Ed’s premises to their logical conclusion is “not worth responding to”. Ed is not only stupid.  He is a coward.

MY COMMENT:  ... or alternatively what does the loner do if he sees someone who desperately  needs help? (for example a child drowning in a pond? - assuming the loner can swim). Here we have an example of how the futility and purposelessness  implicit in atheism can have a corrosive affect on one's sense of what is right.

But don't let anyone go away thinking that I'm suggesting that it is only atheists whose morality is subject to corruption: As we well know those who think they have a moral code sanctioned by divine authority and go on to implement it without cognizance of the first person perspective, are also liable to corruption; especially so if they think their reading of scripture provides an all but direct, easy and utterly certain revelation of the divine will. Whether a moral system is arrived at from first principles or based on an interpretation of Holy Writ, the fact is you can't trust human beings to get it all right!


Relevant Link
https://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-foundation-of-morality.html