There is no objective morality

This post was never posted to the FUUSN list. Unless otherwise specified, from now on all posts to this blog are appearing here for the first time.

-------------------------------

That's right, there is no objective morality. People have strong feelings and convictions that some things are moral and some are immoral. Such feelings tend to run in the same direction within a given society. Some such feelings may be universal to members of the human species. Scientists and philosophers can study such beliefs and find patterns. But to be objective, a morality isn't just a description of people's moral beliefs. It is a firm belief on a firm foundation that certain actions really are right and some are wrong, independent of social customs and human nature.

In March of 2007, I wrote in my blog, "But I do have a faith, and a hope. My faith is that a basic belief like "killing is wrong" is true and that killing really is wrong and not just some convention or fluke of my human nature. Like many who have a more ambitious faith, mine sometimes wavers." But by 2012 my faith had vanished. When I read this article by Joel Marks, it felt exactly right to me:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-moralist

This was someone else who had reached the same conclusions I had but could express them far more eloquently. He was also arguably a master of the field he was rejecting -- a professor of moral philosophy. I have no such credentials.

In the debate between theists and atheists, theists will commonly argue that without God there can be no morality -- no right or wrong, and anything is permissible. Atheists disagree strongly, and Joel Marks refers us to the book Louise Antony edited, "Philosophers Without Gods" (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/970578.Philosophers_Without_Gods). She asserts that "Every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong." I read the book but their arguments in favor of objective morality aren't there and must be somewhere else.

Perhaps one factor is that in an attempt to convince theists that morality can exist without religion, atheists can quietly maintain faith in "ought", since theists' belief in God is also based on faith. In arguing with the amoralist, atheists who believe in objective morality need to defend their faith in something different from everything else that exists. I have heard this described as the "argument from queerness". Objective morality would be a queer thing.

I agree with Marks that there really is no need to panic:

"One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now. "

We can go on teaching our children about right and wrong. We can continue to refer to morality in talking with other people. It's just that it's not an objective morality.

Marks also refers to Richard Garner's book "Beyond Morality", where he sets forth the amoralist position in detail. Garner notes that philosophers have been earnestly debating moral questions for millenia, but nothing is ever resolved. On practical questions such as abortion, capital punishment, or animal suffering, it really looks as if people already have their conclusion in mind and marshal moral arguments to support it, rather than the other way around. Garner suggests we would do better if we simply describe what we like and don't like about the different options, appealing to others who we hope will be persuaded to the extent they like and dislike the same things we do.

If you dig deep, seeking to find the ultimate truth of right and wrong -- as I think some intelligent young people commonly do -- you will find nothing. You will find no objective basis of morality. But if you give up that search, life goes on as before. We all have our goals, desires, and sense of right and wrong, and we will keep arguing with each other about them, striving to do what is right as we see it because that is what we desire.