Atheists do not believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But they do believe that it is objectively wrong to torture small children. They also believe that slavery and genocide are wrong. But where is the proof? What scientific experiment has shown that torturing small children is wrong? If atheists believe that there are objective ethical truths, then why don’t they believe in other invisible entities?
To really appreciate the atheist’s dilemma consider the concept of unalienable rights, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Atheists would reject the claim that we are endowed with rights by our Creator, but would still like to claim that these rights exist. But where are they? Why can’t doctors find them when they do autopsies? Why can’t surgeons find our unalienable rights when they do heart surgery? If unalienable right does not exist in our bodies, then where does they exist? Outer space? The moon? In some other alternate dimension? Plato’s world of perfect forms?
Now you can understand why atheist philosophers rejected the concept of rights more than 100 years ago!
The challenge is clear. Atheists have to find some other way to defend the existence of objective ethics. This is an uphill battle. Christians can make a far more powerful argument for the existence of God based on modern physics than atheists can hope to make for objective ethics.
Two Standard Objections
Here are two standard objections that will cover just about all atheistic defenses of objective ethics.
- Suppose a self-interested person has a chance to steal some money and he’s sure that he can get away with it. Then why shouldn’t he steal the money?
- Atheistic morality is doomed to relativism. Here is a quote by the philosopher of ethics, relativist and atheist, Louis Pojman:
Eskimos allow their elderly to die by starvation, whereas we believe that this is morally wrong. The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe(d) that stealing is morally right, but we believe it is wrong. A tribe in East Africa once threw deformed infants to the hippopotamuses, but we abhor infanticide. Ruth Benedict describes a tribe in Melanesia that views cooperation and kindness as vices, whereas we see them as virtues. Sexual practices vary over time and place. Some cultures accept cannibalism, while the very idea revolts us. Cultural relativism is well documented, and “custom is the king o’er all.” There may or may not be moral principles held in common by every society, but if there are any, they seem to be few, at best. Certainly, it would be very difficult to derive any single “true” morality by observing various societies’ moral standards.
The objection from moral relativism is a bit of philosophical judo. Not long ago, secular anthropologists used stories of different cultures to undermine Christian ethics. Now Christians use stories of different cultures to undermine the validity of atheist ethics!
Now onto the major forms of atheistic defenses.
Evolutionary Basis of Morality
Here is a typical statement of the evolutionary defense: Morality was evolved. All social animals develop a moral code, whether dolphin, chimp, lion, or human. Social animals must cooperate and sacrifice for the group in order to survive. So these traits are developed through evolution.
The evolution defense falls to both standard objections. Different human cultures have different ethics, so evolved morality only leads to moral relativism. Thus it is powerless against female infanticide and circumcision, letting the elderly starve, and the other offenses listed above. The evolutionary defense also justifies stealing. The evolution of morality is simply another survival tool designed to maximize the number of offspring. In other words, on the evolutionary account, morality is a way to advance our self-interest. So if our rational faculties tell us that we can advance our self-interest by stealing, then we should do so.
Invoking evolution also leads to some nasty consequences. Another way to maximize our reproductive fitness is to favor those with whom we share genes. That means we should favor our own family, tribe, and ethnic group over others. This leads directly into one of the most pervasive causes of oppression in the world: dividing people into those that are ‘Like Us’ and ‘the Other.’ Christian ethics does a particularly nice job of avoiding these divisions. Besides the general call to love our neighbor as ourselves, Galatians 3:28 tells us “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Game Theory as a Basis of Morality
Game theory offers a basis for morality. The strategy “Tit for Tat,” in which you cooperate with others by default but retaliate when they attack you, has proven to be the most effective strategy for iterative non-zero sum strategy games.
But game theory makes assumptions that do not always apply in the real world. In iterative games you learn about the past actions of others. But if you could steal from your opponent without their knowledge, then this would become the ideal strategy. Game theory also starts with all players being equal. But if you are more powerful than the other players, you shouldn’t play “tit for tat,” you should simply choose a strategy of domination. This is why Muslim societies oppress women, and why the United States oppressed African-Americans. Slave owners were employing a rational strategy – but they were also acting immorally.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory starts by observing that the world is a dangerous place. If we didn’t have governments then a tyrant could round up a bunch of goons and dominate. In order to prevent this, people collectively pledge mutual protection, along with other possible terms such as caring for the elderly and the poor. These terms become our rights. Social contract theory reconciles rights with atheism, but it pays a high price. Rights are now alienable. They are granted by the social contract and can be removed by changing the contract.
The motivation for the social contract is self-interest. We include a police force in the social contract because we don’t want someone to steal from us. We include protection for the elderly because we want to be taken care of when we are old. Social contract theory cannot assume that we are altruistic because otherwise atheists are brought back to square one: provide an objective defense of altruistic behavior. Social contract theory attempts to do this by using self-interest as a means to get to an altruistic society.
Social contract theory also clearly falls to both standard objections. Since the motivation is self-interest, people should steal if they think they can get away with it. Social contract theory is also vulnerable to the objection from moral relativism. Different cultures would create radically different social contracts. Some societies would allow female infanticide, and others would let the elderly starve.
Social contract theory can also justify oppression. It trades a single tyrant for tyranny of the majority. Thus if one ethnic group makes up the majority, then they can enslave minority groups. This is basically what happened in the United States. It is only because the overwhelmingly Christian abolitionists appealed to a higher law, to God’s law, that slavery was ended. But under atheism there is no higher law, and no reason to end slavery unless the oppressed group were powerful enough to influence the terms of the social contract.
Moral Sense (or Intuitions)
Most philosophers hold to the principle of credulity, which states that the evidence of our senses should be accepted as true unless we have a compelling reason to believe otherwise. This applies to more than the compelling reason otherwise. This could also be applied to our moral intuitions. So if our moral sense tells us that there are objective ethics, then we should accept them.
Moral intuitions fall prey to both of the standard objections. Our moral intuitions are highly subjective. They very greatly from person to person and from society to society. We find female infanticide to be abhorrent, but the ancient Romans and Chinese peasants would disagree. Moral intuitions also fall prey the objection about stealing. Why should I heed my moral intuitions? My intuitions about heights tells me that rock climbing is dangerous, but reason tells me that the benefits of fun and exercise outweigh the risks. Similarly, what if rationality tells me that the gains of stealing outweigh my guilty intuitions?
Another problem with relying on moral intuition is that it faces the same problem as inalienable rights. Where are these objective ethics that I am sensing? Outer space? The moon? If moral intuitions are reliable, then there are such a thing as objective ethics. Unless atheists are prepared to defend the existence of mystical invisible entities such as Plato’s form of the Good, then these invisible objective ethics they sense are powerful refutation of the atheistic worldview in which everything is made of matter and energy, and a powerful argument for the existence of a higher spiritual realm.
So if atheists want to take this approach, they would then be forced to provide evidence against atheism, or else employ some other approach to objective ethics, which takes them right back to square one.
Utilitarians provide a basis for morality from first principles
Utilitarianism is sometimes held as an example of a purely rational ethical system that is created through human reason. But this is an overstatement. Utilitarianism requires that you accept certain first principles as axiomatic – to accept them even though they cannot be proven. This includes principles such as “the law should be applied equally to everyone.” This is sometimes called universalizability, and it is considered to be the essence of ethics. But utilitarians cannot prove universalizability, they must simply accept it as a given.
Utilitarianism is actually a good proof of the fact that atheistic ethics are not objective, because they “plug the gaps” in secular defense of objective ethics with first principles.( To see a more detailed criticism of utilitarianism, see here.)
Objection: Christians do not have an objective moral law either
If you ever have the occassion to employ the moral argument, then you might find yourself surprised at the half-hearted nature of direct argument you get from atheists. They are more likely to try and turn the argument back on Christians. There are generally four common challenges.
The first challenge is that Christian ethics are also self-interested since Christians want to go to heaven. Of course, Protestants believe that you go to heaven through faith alone. Good works do not help, so ethical behavior will not get you into heaven. However, since passages such as Matthew 6:19 imply that the rewards in heaven will be greater be doing good works, we can allow this objection. A good way to view Christian ethics is as a perfect form of social contract theory (God called them covenants for a reason). God used his power to unify morality with self-interest. Since God is omniscient you can’t get away with stealing in secret, and since God’s law is truly objective – the same for everyone – Christian ethics do not fall to relativism.
The second challenge is the Christian ethics are subjective because of individual revelation (God told me to do X), and the subjectivity of interpreting the Bible. This is a grave misunderstanding of Christianity, because an individual revelation does not allow you to go against God’s teachings as revealed in the Bible. Secondly, although the Bible can be difficult to interpret at times, some parts are made overwhelmingly clear. The 10 commandments, which includes “do not murder” and “do not steal.” The command to love your neighbor as yourself. The commands to help the poor. Finally, even where the Bible is difficult to interpret, the truth can be found. That is why Christians came to realize that the Bible is against slavery, which led Quakers and Puritans to start the abolitionist movement.
The issue of slavery leads to the third challenge, which is that Christian ethics are wrong. To thoroughly address these challenges you probably need to add a book like Gleason Archer’s ‘Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties’ to your reference library, but since nine times out of ten people will bring up slavery, it is worth giving a brief defense. The passage Exodus 21:16 clearly prohibits involuntary slavery “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Thus slavery as practiced in America and during the Roman Empire would be prohibited. The other passages refer to voluntary slavery, such as bond or debt slavery, and regulate its practice to prevent cruelty. In the highly impoverished primitive world, bond slavery is preferable to starving to death. These regulations include laws protecting a slave from unjust punishment (Exodus 21:20, 26), letting slaves rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 23:12), and prohibiting slave owners from prostituting their slaves (Leviticus 19:2). Furthermore, the Bible repeatedly makes it clear that slaves are as worthy in God’s eyes as free people (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, Ephesians 6:8, Ephesians 6:9).
The fourth challenge is philosophical: the Euthyphro dilemma, which came from one of Plato’s dialogues. “Is a man holy because he is loved by the gods, or is he loved by the gods because he is holy?” In other words, if morality comes from God, then God could simply declare murder and rape to be moral. But if morality comes from outside God, then God is simply following a law that is even higher than Himself.
The Euthyphro dilemma is an example of what logicians would call the fallacy of the false dilemma. Christians reject both answers and favor a third alternative that Plato did not consider. The standards of morality come from God’s nature itself, as a omnibenevolent (all-loving) being. Since God is all-loving, He calls us to be all-loving as well.
Philosophical Background
There are three points from philosophy that you may want to be familiar with.
- The Is-Ought Problem. This is developed by the famous skeptic David Hume. His point is that we only have knowledge of the world in the way it is. We have no ability to look at the world and determine how it ought to be. There is no scientific experiment that will conclude that we should give money to the poor. Hume’s point about the Is-Ought problem dovetails into the argument made here.
- Appeal to nature. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that if something exists in nature, then it must be good. Lots of bad things happen in nature also. Just because it happens in nature, it doesn’t make it right. You frequently see this in the debate about gay marriage.
- The naturalistic fallacy. This was developed by G.E. Moore. It is frequently confused with the appeal to nature. But it really means that philosophers can only define something as good. Utilitarians would define good as “that which maximizes happiness (or satisfies the most preferences).” Human rights ethicists would define good as “protecting human rights.” But it always remains an open question, as Moore put it, as to whether their definition of good is correct.
