Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
Without God, a natural morality has no foundation. This is because in nature we find all kinds of behaviours that we would be unwilling to regard as morally good: we find animals that lay their eggs in the living bodies of other animals, we find animals that eat their young, we find animals that do a variety of unpleasant and disgusting things in order to survive and proliferate. How can we assume that the sub-set of behaviours that human beings engage in is morally superior to the behaviour of a prying mantis or a pig? Only if we assume, like Thomas Aquinus, the existence of a transcendent being who, for whatever reason, favours our species, can we explain our moral superiority to others and regard morality as being 'in nature'.
Otherwise, as TGS argues, any biological impulsion will need to be scrutinized in the light of ethical principles that are not themselves given biologically. Acquinus held that humans use reason in order to understand the natural commands of God; even if we assume that morality is natural, we cannot simply taken it as given. Without Acquinus's God to invest nature with morality, we cannot even make the assumption.
Morality is, and probably always will be, ultimately undecidable. The hope that there might be a natural set of rules or principles is only viable in a world in which transcendence is possible. In a world completely governed by scientific principles there is no bed-rock upon which to build the one true moral system.
|
I am assuming that by "God" you are referring to an omnipotent Person with free will. If such a God is the basis for morality, and if it's true that without this God there is no natural foundation for morality, then what is the basis for God's morality? Is something good simple because God decides it should be so, or is there a yardstick for determining what is good that exists outside of God? If God should decide that murder and rape is good, would that make these acts moral? It would seem that if God is the sole decider of what is good and bad with no reference to an external model of some kind of ethics, then the idea of a "good God" is a tautology. On the other hand; if there is a model of morality to which even God must conform in order for the phrase "good God" to have any meaning, then it would seem as if God is not necessary for morality.
Sam Harris would disagree with your statement that "In a world completely governed by scientific principles there is no bed-rock upon which to build the one true moral system." He has an interesting TED Talk on the subject entitled "Science can answer moral questions" that you can hear
here. (I believe someone has already posted this link to MR, but I can't recall whether it was in this thread or another.)
I think that there will always be shades of gray, but IMO science can go a lot further toward answering ethical questions than is generally assumed. Much depends on asking the right questions. Rather than ask whether a certain action is right or wrong, we should be asking whether a certain action would be beneficial or harmful to all parties. Does it increase human flourishing? Does it increase or mitigate the suffering of all interested parties? Will it produce joy or despair?