The reasonableness of belief in objective morality
Three perspectives
To understand morality we must first answer the question, What is man? I can envision a defense of objective morality from three different perspectives with respect to this question:
Objective morality based on man’s relationship with God
Objective morality based on biological human nature
Objective morality based on teleological human nature
I draw heavily from natural law philosophy in this post, particularly the idea that one can believe there exists an objective or optimal morality (the natural law) without understanding it perfectly or in full. The natural law philosopher then works toward greater understanding.
I am not arguing that a rational individual must accept objective morality, but that a rational individual can believe in an objective morality.
To be clear, this post is a defense of objective morality in the abstract - not an attempt to describe all the behaviors that are or are not moral.
Thanks to Blithering Genius for the inspiration and challenge to write this.
Morality as consequences, rules, virtues, etc.
Before I get to my defense of objective morality, I will share a thought experiment that illustrates how I think about morality more generally. This section doesn’t depend on morality being objective.
Imagine that each of us had a perfect knowledge of the current state of the world. Imagine that we also understood perfectly the individual short and long term needs of every member of humanity. Imagine that we had the ability to perfectly understand how every action or inaction would transform the present into the near and long term future, including how every individual would be affected and how society as a whole would be impacted.
In that situation, an action or idea would be considered “right” if we had perfect knowledge that it will positively impact the near and long term future of the individuals and societies involved according to a given value system (let’s say your own value system, dear reader; or even better yet, the value system that would have arisen among this omniscient society), and wrong to the extent that it will negatively impact individuals and the future of humanity. In this case we could judge each action or idea individually based on its consequences within its specific context, and there would be no need to formulate general rules, virtues, or principles associated with right and wrong.
However, we do not have such knowledge or ability, and under cover of this uncertainty we tend to use reason to justify our own interests rather than to idealistically search out moral truth. A purely consequentialist morality would have some value, but would lead to all kinds of problems and conflicts as different individuals assessed each situation differently, biased by self interest or differing worldviews. We prevent some of the conflicts by keeping in mind the consequentialist vision of acting in the interest of positive outcomes for individuals and humanity, but adding to it a set of general rules to hold to, virtues and values to strive for, and principles to guide the moral seeker.
One final point. If we add an additional assumption that the needs and aspirations of humanity in general are largely consistent over time and space, then the value system of this omniscient society would be, or at least would approach, the objectively optimal values for human flourishing. This doesn’t mean that each individual would perfectly live up to these values, but their moral understanding would approach perfection. Any values, rules, virtues, principles, or philosophies derived from their moral understanding would be part of the objective morality.
Definitions
The definitions I provide below are definitions that work for me, not necessarily intended to be valid for all conceivable uses of the terms. These definitions are arranged from more general to more specific.
Right (in the moral sense) - behaviors, ideas, philosophies, etc., that are thought to overall positively impact individuals and society. Wrong is the opposite. There can exist behaviors, ideas, and philosophies that are neither right nor wrong.
Morality - rules, values, principles, and guidance for distinguishing right from wrong. These rules, values, principles, and guidance implicitly carry a conception of what constitutes a negative or positive effect on individuals and society. This general term encompasses both personal moral understanding and objective morality.
Objective morality - a moral system in which right and wrong are grounded in a way that is common to all of humanity, not relative to time or place. This can also be thought of as the optimal moral understanding that best leads to human flourishing.
Natural law - an objective morality grounded in human nature. In natural law philosophy there exists an objective morality, the natural law, which we do not perfectly understand. The natural law philosopher seeks further understanding by reason (and revelation, for the religious).
1. Objective morality based on man’s relationship with God
1A. Belief in God is reasonable
While belief in objective morality is not only derived from belief in God, the reality of course is that most belief in objective morality is connected with belief in God. Here I will argue that belief in God is reasonable. This is a defense of the existence of a Christian sort of God, and certainly not an attempt to defend every possible religious or supernatural belief.
God is a thinking being who we perceive as acting in the context of time, not a generalized force of nature that is repeatable through time or physically testable. Thus, knowledge of God should be considered in light of the historical method rather than the scientific method. The existence of God cannot be disproven by logical or scientific arguments. Rather, the existence of God should be taken up via a critical evaluation of sources, witnesses, and other historical evidence according to a critical historical methodology.
Many individuals have claimed to have had experiences that support, for them, the existence of God. This is a significant fraction of the population - according to some surveys, between one third and one half of the US population. For my part, I believe in God because of personal experiences that give me solid reason to believe in God (to the point where now it is almost logically required that I believe in God).
I claim that it is reasonable for someone to believe in God if their personal experiences provide evidence for belief. Belief in God in these circumstances would be an example of applying the historical method to historical evidence. Others may not personally relate to testimony of spiritual experiences and may reasonably apply a more critical eye to this sort of historical evidence. However, given the abundance of such witnesses, it does not follow that everyone who applies a critical historical methodology must flatly reject all of these testimonies. This is especially true if the historian has had spiritual experiences with God in his or her own life (for example, Arnold Toynbee). If belief in God is reasonable for some, then belief in God in general cannot be said to be unreasonable.
1B. Objective morality follows from belief in God
From a Christian perspective, morality is objective in that it is grounded on God’s perfect knowledge of what rules, principles, and guidance will best benefit man, and God’s love for man. Following God’s guidance will lead to Salvation in the next world and also the best life for man (as God sees it) in this world, which is what God wants for us.
An interesting wrinkle is that Christianity leads to belief in the existence of an objective morality (God’s morality), but most Christians accept that God has not given us every detail in perfect clarity. There still can be debate among Christians about the details of the objective morality. There remains room for reason in addition to revelation in seeking greater understanding of morality.
2. Objective morality based on biological human nature
2A. Humans have a common biological nature, including aspects of morality
The tide has turned from when blank slate behavioral psychology ruled the day. Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt have been strong on the issue of human nature, or the idea that there are apparently innate and universal moral intuitions. Pinker and others have referred to it as a “universal moral grammar.” This doesn’t mean that everyone or all cultures agree on morality in all its points. Haidt in The Righteous Mind describes human nature as a rough draft pre-imprinted on the mind with certain tendencies, predispositions, and moral foundations, which can then be over-written, elaborated, or suppressed by experience, learning, and culture. Haidt and Pinker cite cross-cultural studies and infant studies to support the idea of universal and innate moral foundations.
These universal principles of morality are most visible at the extremes. For example, even neo-Nazis and anti-Semites don’t usually try to justify the Holocaust, but instead try to deny or minimize it. That type of behavior is universally considered to be wrong. Even the highly indoctrinated soldiers carrying out gas chamber executions were not doing it out of a conviction that it was right or ok; rather, they had to have their moral intuitions over-written by dehumanizing language, peer pressure, conditioning to obey authority, and moral desensitization. Even pre-Axial Age non-Western cultures record disgust at atrocities and injunctions against crimes such as theft, lying, and unjust killings.
2B. Innate and universal moral intuitions implies objective morality
Now I take the argument a step further than do Haidt or Pinker. In 2A I argued that it is reasonable to believe that there exist innate and universal moral intuitions grounded in human nature. This is by my definition the natural law, which is an example of an objective morality. It is objective because it is universal to humanity and not subjective - it is grounded in the firm reality of our nature and genetics. Granted, we are not able to describe the full extent of the natural law. But that is why we seek to better understand human nature and thus make positive progress as a species.
3. Objective morality based on teleological human nature
This approach is closer to a traditional natural law philosophy. The ancient Greeks believed that everything that exists has a “telos” - a purpose or ultimate aim, that it strives to complete. For the Greeks, a specific telos is part of the nature of every thing, and a thing’s nature implies a specific telos. The thing is most content when it exists in a way that is consistent with its teleological nature. Aristotle used this concept as a mechanism for his physics, which we now know are nonsense, but teleological thinking can still be a useful way to think about humanity. Thinking teleologically about the “nature” of man means we don’t focus on the baser animal origins or instincts of man, but on what man can best become, his telos. Thus, the “nature” of man is defined by what he strives to become, at his best.
3A. Human nature implies telos or purpose
If we assume humans have an innate and universal biological nature (2A), then our individual reactions to stimuli follow certain patterns, as do our interactions in society (which is a critical part of human nature). As societies evolve, they tend to follow certain historical patterns, because they are guided by the intrinsic nature of man. When we see changes in society that solve old problems and enable society to meet the external and internal needs inherent to our nature at a greater scale and/or at a higher level of satisfaction, it is reasonable to call that change “progress”. Our external needs are basic - food, water, shelter. Once the need is met, more is not necessarily better. The internal needs of man are where the real markers of seemingly limitless potential for progress are found - freedom, human connection, family, art, culture, learning, etc., and some would add religion or transcendence. Some states of society can be further down the road of progress than others. Some societal patterns enable progress rapidly over a century or two while other societies with different moral and social patterns seem to remain stagnant for millennia at a low level of progress. If there are better and worse patterns for living in society, is it not reasonable to believe that there could be a “best” pattern which might unlock ever more advanced modes of flourishing, perhaps beyond what we can even imagine today? If we allow that there can be a better or best mode of existence, then we are open to thinking teleologically about mankind.
While teleological thinking is not as prominent as it once was, it might not be as out of fashion as you think. The traditional modern example is Christians. Christians generally believe that man’s telos is achieved by following the example of Christ. (If the progress of Christendom over the last 2000 years is any indication, they have a pretty strong case in my opinion.) But teleology does not have to depend on God. Hegelians see man’s telos as freedom and rational self-consciousness within a rationally organized state. They look at history as a progression toward this ultimate end. (Consider Francis Fukuyama’s much-critiqued “The End of History,” which suggested that Western liberal democracy was man’s telos and been achieved by the early 1990s.) Marxists add the idea of a classless equality to the Hegelian telos. Straussians (after Leo Strauss) see man’s nature in a more Greek way, with the philosophical life as the ultimate telos for elites. (Non-elites may have a different telos for Aristotle and Strauss.) These are all teleological thinkers or ways of thinking that have deeply influenced the modern world.
3B. Teleological human nature implies objective morality
If there is an ultimate end or telos for man (whether living in communion with God, living free from oppression, complete material equality, or the philosophical life), then there is a distinct way of living - a moral or ethical system - that is required to enable this way of life. I’ll give a few small examples. For Christians, living in communion with God requires humility and loving your neighbor. For Hegelians, the ethical life includes respecting others’ freedoms and fulfilling one’s duties within the state. For Marxists, moral action is working toward solidarity and the end of class divisions. For Straussians, a focus on understanding truth and human nature.
Belief in a common telos grounded in universal human nature (3A) implies an objective morality. I say this because, as I suggested above, a telos requires a corresponding moral system. A moral system arising from a telos grounded in universal human nature is then by definition an objective morality.
Conclusion
I give all of these argument in support of objective morality as beliefs that a reasonable person could hold, from different perspectives on human and divine nature. I am not suggesting that any of these perspectives are logically required of all reasonable people.
I believe that these three perspectives are not mutually exclusive. If morality is an elephant, then moral philosophers are the blind men groping and feeling their way to greater understanding. Some may first encounter the tail, others the trunk, and others a leg. But so long as they acknowledge that there is an elephant in front of them they will together make progress toward understanding it.