Is There Any Real Right or Wrong?

ETHICS WITHOUT GOD?

One might be persuaded at this point that moral relativism is likely mistaken and that there are objective moral obligations that are binding on all people at all times. But do we really need God? As we consider this alternative, however, we must take seriously the question of what makes these moral principles objective, obligatory and morally binding. How could they be more than just personal preferences or social conventions?

Some have suggested that we can provide an objective foundation for morality without appealing to God. Morality has just evolved over the centuries because it "works", they suggest. That is, morality promotes individual or social benefits and survival for humans. Whatever promotes human flourishing and survival is good. Whatever doesn't promote human flourishing and survival is bad. That is all we need for objectivity in morality, they claim. There is no need for God.^xiii

CRITICAL ASSUMPTION UNAVAILABLE TO THE ATHEIST

But the problem with this suggestion is that it is based on the necessary assumption that human beings are objectively valuable. Remember earlier I acknowledged that if we assume that humans are objectively valuable, we could probably develop a coherent system of ethics. But if God does not exist we do not have access to that assumption. Humans, like everything else in the universe, are just accidental arrangements of atoms, and therefore, we cannot justifiably claim that they are objectively valuable. This assumption is usually adopted uncritically by most people, including moral philosophers. I have found that virtually all attempts to provide a foundation for objective morality apart from God make this assumption that humans are objectively valuable, but that assumption is not available to the atheist.^xv

Moreover, if morality evolved because it produced survival benefits, we would not have a justification for objective morality, but merely an explanation for how moral beliefs arose. In fact it would be difficult to see how these beliefs or behaviors could even be considered morality anymore. They would be mere suggestions for survival, a far cry from objective moral principles. Does self-preservation really capture what we mean when we say something is moral? Does mere prudence really capture what we mean by morality? On this evolutionary model we would feel that objective moral principles exist, but they really wouldn't. Are you really willing to accept the idea that while rape, murder, and discrimination feel wrong, they really aren't? And once we've figured out that our feeling of morality with regard to say, rape, is just a biological adaptation inculcated into us over millions of years, then we would have no reason to regard rape as objectively wrong anymore.

There are additional problems with the claim that morality promotes individual and societal benefits and survival. To deal with these it is helpful to consider the two categories of the individual and society separately.

CONTINUE: Societal Benefits and Survival