On the Question of Morality

In almost any discussion regarding a rational view of morality, and secular humanism in particular. The old canard concerning morality without god(s) will more than likely come up, usually as a conversation stopper. Which explains why it, upon closer examination, appears to be ill contrived in a historical context, especially with the positive affirmation of evolutionary origins of our behavior, including morality from great minds like George Williams, Robert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith, not to omit so many others. But, like the stagnant bronze age morality of the Bible, the arguments for divine morality haven't changed for at least 2500 years as exemplified by the Socratic question, also known as Euthyphro's Dilemma:

"Is what you're doing pious, [moral] because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious [moral]?"

Now I bring this up to highlight some inescapable points regarding morality. The most crucial of those points is clarified when we dispense with those myths and the unfortunate habits of thought mushrooming from those fictions. Religions, especially the monotheisms of the Abrahamic variety, are the original source of this hypostatization, this reification, this objectification, of a concept so morality could be usurped and repurposed through the dictates of tyrants as some thing absolute, when this concept is anything but absolute.

Before I go further, I need to clarify some terminology that has, for far too long, been purposefully opaque. First, superior moral choices eliminate suffering. Superior morality is an ethical activity that eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering while enhancing health, happiness, and fulfillment. When I use the term objective I mean only perceivable evidence that can be experienced by any cogent, sentient entity undistorted by feelings, emotions, or bias. Subjective is the interpretive aspect of that observation, perception, and cognition dynamic. Relative, therefore, is not an aspect of superior morality or superior moral choice. Relativism can only apply to cultural conditioning, regional traditions, or state regulations and related dictates, but not morality. Right and wrong are relative and far too ambiguous to be used in discussions of moral or ethical considerations. To avoid confusion with a growing array of misuses, I will use correct and incorrect where possible. When I use absolute it will be to denote the authoritarian abstraction for perfectly right, which is irrational nonsense because right is relative and perfect is impossible. For this reason absolute morality is a fiction, but many ideologues and fundamentalists argue otherwise. 

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like, say, the freezing/boiling points of water, E=mC², or the properties of physical entities subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This view strikes me as silly, of course, but there are ideologues who try to argue for this ontologically. This is to say that morality is not, has never been, and can never be some thing passed down or imposed. Morality is not absolute, it cannot come from authoritarian commands, i.e., what is the best way to eliminate suffering in one situation may have horrendous consequences in another; therefore, authoritarian commandments are immoral. Morality is neither the accepted convention of the majority, nor something that can be conserved through religio-political socioeconomic traditions. The attainment of supremely moral outcomes is not possible solely through concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents though this does get us closer, especially when considering the surviving memes of an evolving society.

Moral choices are subjectively relative, (subject to an understanding of a given situation, relative to the circumstances). But this is not to say morality is either subjective or relative. The elimination of suffering is neither a matter of opinion nor a convention of culture. This is why humanity, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property, etc., all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Unlike the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain, an example of civil law enacted to instill a convention throughout a population that is neither correct, nor incorrect, merely expedient as an accepted practice, morality is not the practiced conventions of a society because moral choices cannot be imposed through authority or authoritarian structures. It does not matter that it is accepted by the majority as good and right for all, even when this may be the case for very good reasons, and it often is. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned. Despite the claims of religious moralists, this is what typically happens. No deities required. This is the driver of moral progress in tandem with intellectual advances producing social progress and societal evolution, and it is the bane of retrogressive conservative plutocrats who do everything they can to hold onto their exploitive power in the face of a progressively elusive target.

That many sentient beings collaborate for their mutual benefit, means we see many progressive actors evolving for the betterment of all in free societies, but conservative actors stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is "right" or "wrong." This is also all  the evidence anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, because absolute authority is antithetical to democracy. It is for similar reasons that rules, regulations, and laws are a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, while morality flourishes, progresses, grows intellectually, pragmatically, and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy, or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

So, to the question, can one be moral (good) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! The glaring question now becomes: can one be moral with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to reject that assertion, also emphatically.

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse concerns about moral chaos without some central authority. They want us to believe all is permissible without their patriarchal sky-tyrant. It's the basis of their patriarchal control system. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the Age of Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide "right" and "wrong," as it progresses with our ever advancing morality.

Now, like any progressive, enlightened thinker, I have my detractors.  Between Twitter and religious bloggers so eager to spend all day debating the existence of god(s), to call what came next argumentum ad nauseam would be an insult to those little Latin chunks, which had more substance. But, when nature calls: 

[Edited for legibility and clarity so I could avoid many [sic] tags] 

"I've been debating Beachbum on Saturday on the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he said he could refute. Craig has a three-point reasoning the existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists."

Both premises are false, obviously. Irrespective of the existence of objective moral values, the biblical God does not exist. Objective moral values do not exist. Morals are concepts and do not exist as some thing passed down. What we value is subjective. And William Lane Craig isn't even a talented sophist.

"Beachbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to have morality.[1] I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in yellow font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective.[2] He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: !Kung San in Africa and The Na of China."

[1] I successfully argued like above, that morality results from empathetic interaction and cannot possibly come from structures of authority and backed that up with the Socratic Dialogue, Euthyphro's Dilemma.

[2] Marriage is a regulated cultural convention used as a building block for civilization, which is a system of enforced conformity to facilitate nationalistic and plutocratic exploitation. 

(Regarding the !Kung San and the Na of China, I offered a description of their marital tradition pertaining to their marital practices as evidence that my interlocutor's claims refuted his argument, but this has nothing at all to do with morality.)

Some of the responses are little more than attacks that are embarrassing, so it would be best for me to rebuild some arguments just to canvass a realm of objections for our enlightenment. These will be snippets plucked from an attempt to insult.

"Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue."

Obviously. In point of fact, this was the contrast I was attempting to make. The difference between morals, regulations, conventions, and traditions. 

"There is no way road regulations can be equated with adultery or stealing."

Because road regulations are neither correct, nor incorrect, merely a safety convention, but adultery threatens the family unit. And the family unit is the first level of control through forced conformity in the structure of civilization, nationalism, race, and community. So, obviously, there is nothing perfectly right, i.e., absolute about adultery because marriage is a cultural convention with variations like polygamy.

Now stealing is even less absolute with even more cultural conventions. Spoils of war is one such convention. The Hawaiian people had no concept of theft resembling the European view. The hyperbole escalates in this next comment. 

"If Beachbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual?" 

No, we need to remember how to make superior moral choices. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence and comparing it to substantiated facts in one's background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. Pedophilia causes so much suffering, on so many levels, for so long that it is inconsistent with elimination, mitigation, or alleviation of suffering. 

Law is not morality. Laws are regulatory conventions that have nothing to do with morality. Therefore, that homosexuality is biblically condemned as an abomination punishable by death, that it was once treated as a mental disorder, and now has been scientifically demonstrated to be as natural and beneficial to our species as heterosexuality and more and more sane people now ignore those primitive texts actually demonstrates my point as well as any other point of contention. 

"Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong?"

Exactly, but this is not morality. It represents cultural conventions and an appeal to the gallery fallacy. It could be called tyranny of the majority in some cases. But this is a situation where the word right is confused with moral. Right by convention has nothing to do with morality. Right by tyrannical dictate, or government, has nothing to do with morality. So, what authority gives us the ability to judge the moral superiority of some act or omitted act? Not the god-fraud. For one thing, its reprehensible dogmas tell us not to judge. Is it laws? Of course not, laws, regulations, and conventions are based on power and have nothing to do with morality.

So, what is it? It is science, knowledge, and the scientific method. We critically assess, objectively observe the evidence, and compare it to substantiated facts in our background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. It is this understanding of the power in assessing on sight, event specific, objective evidence that gives each of us the moral authority.

"We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, but why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that it's wrong?"

The evidence of inflicted suffering, but not for the murder victim. The dead suffer nothing. But the family and other survivors who need or may one day need the victim or her knowledge. There may be many more who suffer due to your murder. But what if you kill someone causing a great deal of suffering? The odds are with you that you are acting morally. What if the victim has caused only a little suffering or is about to kill someone else. Wound if possible, based on the evidence. But you will not get this from an anthology of myths that treat you like an ignoramus that cannot assess the situations yourself, only to brag relentlessly about some of the most immoral and amoral acts ever committed, had they been true.  

"Explain why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image." 

First, good is relative. What is good for you may not be good for me. And, considering that you are a Christian, I seriously doubt it. But I am not concerned with your relativism, or your appeal to authority. What does concern me is that your derangement has you believing that your immorality in ignorance is just as valid as my moral acts and judgments based on education and evidence. This is a serious problem for humanity and a major reason why these backward superstitions should be pitched in the dustbin of bad ideas.

And one more thing, your "God" never said anything. You have a completely unsubstantiated belief based on Bronze Age desert goat herder myths written by authors of fantasies describing several different deities of which none can possibly exist. Lying is immoral. 

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is." 

For the sake of brevity, I will assume you mean moral. But still, an objective moral standard anchors our ethics to an immoral past. Your anthology of theology anchors our moral choices to an age of barbarism. The standards of Locke, Kant, and Hume anchor our morality to an era of monarchy, castes, comparable ignorance, and slavery. So, an objective moral standard is nonsensical relativism. 

Morality has nothing to do with right and wrong. This is an establishment bait and switch perpetrated by the religio-political socioeconomic system of control to maintain the status quo.

If you want something by which to measure your moral choices, something that will guide you through every moral morass, there is only one that will keep you on the moral high ground. 

Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned.

This alone will keep you on the cutting edge moral superiority. The more experience you have access to, the more education, the more thinkers and perceiving participants, the better your moral choices will be. You will not get any of this from the god-fraud.