An objective moral standard without a god

 The moral argument for god can be summarized as follows: 

If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, god exists.

     The moral argument for god is very interesting deductive claim. We can imagine if a god did exist, then its very nature would dictate our moral compass. Yet, despite this speculation, there is no sufficient evidence available for a god. Because of this, belief in a god is not reasonable. This fact is what makes this claim so interesting as we consider the nature of morality. Where do our morals come from? What is the objective moral standard without a god? It seems clear that we need objective morals so we can accurately assess what is right and wrong. It seems self-evident that an objective standard of morality does in fact exist (and needs to exist) . This has led to numerous different claims about morality from leaders in the atheist community. One common claim is that morality is dependent on wellbeing. This has been proposed by Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, and by Matt Dillahunty, host of the very popular live call-in show The Atheist Experience. Although wellbeing is going to be a large aspect of human morality, wellbeing is ultimately relative to a particular perspective. Perspective leaves the door open to bias, feelings, and a host of non-scientific (subjective) influences. This presents a predisposition to be wrong about our perspective, and therefore incorrectly justified in our immoral actions towards others. This is a dilemma that has plagued moral philosophy and is a topic that frequently emerges in arguments surrounding the existence of a god. 

     Although human wellbeing will invariably be an aspect of moral judgements involving humans, it is ultimately irrelevant in the actual determination of what is moral. This is not to say that morality is not important for wellbeing. Morality, at its core, is a rational acknowledgement of Truth and the actions and ideas that coincide with this Truth. Truth itself is the objective standard for moral values. In order to consistently perform a moral action in any situation, we need to know what is True of that situation. Likewise, we cannot accurately have an idea of what is moral without having an idea of what is demonstrably True. Truth is not subjective because we logically recognize that there can be only be one Truth, just as there can be only one Reality. What is Real is what is True. In our current world, people believe a whole host of incorrect things, leading us to believe in various truths: things we mistakenly believe to be True. To not be concerned with the Truth, or to not be open to being corrected, presents a fantastic source of potential harm for us. As such, the only objective moral standard  (something which is morally True in all circumstances) is a commitment to the Truth itself. Truth requires evidence. This is the source of the massive and often unseen damage caused by faith: believing in things without evidence or in spite of the evidence. Faith is tantamount to religious belief and indiscernible from gullibility. Faith is not a virtue. 

     Nestled at the heart of our cognitive functions, there exists a profound and inextricable connection between Truth and morality. Interestingly, this notion is already evident in our language. For example, the words “right” and “wrong” contain both Truth and moral elements within them. For example, if someone asks if  2 + 2 = 4, responding “right”, or even “good”, although the latter being somewhat odd,  would still indicate that the proposition was “True”. Likewise, if someone asks if punishing an innocent man is correct, we may reply, “no, that is bad”, just as we could say, “no, that is wrong”. This makes sense to us despite the common language for morality being “good” and “bad”, and the common language for Truth being “True” and “false”. This is a fascinating aspect of this proposition.

     What is True is good. What is false is bad. We recognize that acting on unTrue things is inherently morally wrong. This is a necessary condition of rational cognition. Without unjust harm and/or cognitive dissonance, there will never be a case in which something that is false is good, just as there will never be a case in which something that is True is bad. To reiterate, any actions or events contrary to this would necessarily represent some element of unjust harm or cognitive dissonance.  Coming to an understanding of what is True is how we ultimately decide what is right and wrong. As such, increasing our knowledge of any situation gives us a greater understanding of the moral imperative of that situation. This idea is illustrated by the allegory of two labs which is posted on this blog. This connection between Truth and morality is manipulated by our knowledge. As our knowledge changes or is modified, so also does our moral “compass”. Because of this, we can effectively alter our moral compass with knowledge. This is profound. It is clear that Truth itself is the objective moral standard in our Reality. We can increase our moral behavior by increasing the amount of knowledge (Truth) that we have.

     As stated previously, we require an understanding of Truth to have an understanding of what is moral. Truth is the objective moral standard. Because of this tandem nature between Truth and morality, just as logical fallacies do not provide evidence toward the Truth of a claim, these same logical fallacies alone cannot justify a moral onus because of the same logical principles. This is to say that a fallacious logical argument is necessarily a fallacious moral argument. For example, the concept of utilitarianism is morally fallacious. This is to say that utilitarianism is immoral because it is illogical. Utilitarianism is the moral equivalent of an ad populum logical fallacy. In the same way, divine command theory is morally fallacious, mirrored from the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Divine command theory is nothing more than following orders from an undemonstrated authority.  Although “the golden rule”, understood as: "treat others as you wish to be treated", is practically reasonable, it is still morally fallacious because it makes ourselves the authority and not Truth. As such, the golden rule is another form of the logically fallacious argument from authority. Furthermore, the golden rule does not eliminate our bias, as such, does not provide an accurate assessment of Truth. Kant’s categorical imperative, as understood by the maxim: "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” is similar to the golden rule. As such, the categorical imperative also falls victim to the logical fallacy of argument from authority in which the authority is the self. Another moral philosophy, moral absolutism, fails to recognizes the nuance of a particular circumstance, becoming something similar to a false equivalence logical fallacy. We recognize that we must have knowledge (Truth) of a situation before we can make a moral decision about the situation. Currently, the most accurate moral philosophy is that of cultural relativism, with the knowledge (Truth) of that culture dictating the moral structure of that culture. The massively interconnected world we live in brings supreme complications to this idea. Our collective inability to identify Truth is the source of tremendous injustice and harm in the world. 

    We recognize that religion often promotes social cohesion and community. As an evolved social species, these elements of religion are critical to a functioning society. Faith on the other hand is not required for religion. This should hopefully illustrate the strength of secular morality, a system which relies on evidence to determine what is True, and therefore a far greater moral proposition. The million dollar question is, “how do we determine what is actually True?” Let’s take a look.