DAY 74 - Ethics and You Again

BIG QUESTION: Can People Be Good Without God?

_

What are some possible answers?

Humanists would say that Ethics is so deeply ingrained in human culture that even we all adhere to common values.

Social Peace is always a goal in societies throughout time - and the way societies reach that goal is through the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, rational moral inquiry, etc. and both Religious and Non-Religious people can and do share these values.

Is God Necessary for Morality?

Many would argue that without a Supreme Being, there can be no morality. This was famously expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, where two characters argue about the possibility of an atheistic morality. The conclusion is that God is needed for morality to exist, for without God 'everything is permitted'.

Here's how he said it: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth?" (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov, Toronto: Penguin Classics, 2003, p 227.)

In plain English, "Imagine that you are creating a society in which the purpose is to make people happy and peaceful.  But in order to create this society it was essential to torture to death only one tiny creature, an innocent baby.  Would you be a part of this?

The formulation above basically makes a case that the existence of evil in our world is incompatible with the existence of God.

Many would agree that a Divinity is needed to guarantee moral behaviour, through a system of punishment and reward in the Afterlife. In Christianity, those who behave morally can hope to be rewarded with a place in Heaven. For those who behave immorally, their place will be somewhat warmer and less pleasant. Other religions have a different system of reward and punishment, but the basic principle is the same. For example, in the karmic religions, good behaviour is rewarded with a higher reincarnation than bad behaviour. For those who believe in a Supreme Being and the reward/punishment system, the question, "Why behave morally?" can be answered in two ways:

1. Because that is what the Supreme Being wants and that is how you have been made, and
2. if you don't, you'll be sorry!

But what of people who don't believe in God? Can an atheist behave morally - will the term even have any meaning? Of course there are many atheists who behave in ways that most would recognize as moral. But what makes them behave? Or what of those who believe in a Supreme Being, but not in the system of reward and punishment or the Afterlife? Both groups could argue for a morality based on Humanist values, which takes into account the relations between members of society, without reference to the Divine. Many ethical systems, such as Confucianism, Aristotleanism, or Utilitarianism fall into this category, and God is irrelevant to the question, "Why behave morally?".

For You to Do:

List 3 Reasons to "Do the Right Thing".

Possible answers include:

1. To avoid getting caught and punished.  But what if you were invisible, would you still be virtuous?

2.  To earn trust and respect from others.  But what if no-one knew of you being virtuous?

3.  Golden Rule.

These answers to these questions suggest that the outcome - security, peace, justice, etc. - are inherently good things, so this is a somewhat circular argument.

Two schools of thought on Ethics.

Ethical Absolutists - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action.  They think that everyone, regardless of consequences, circumstances, culture, etc. should observe this moral code.

Ethical Universalitsts - one moral code determines the rightness or wrongness of an action.  But, they believe that it's ok for the code to be broken in certain circumstances, so that the ethical code is universal but not absolute.

Sophie's Choice film clip - What would an Ethical Absolutist say about the choice that Sophie made?  What would an Ethical Universalist say?

Absolutists and Universalists are at one end of the Ethical spectrum.  AT the other end are Ethical Relativists - reject the idea of a universal moral code.  Rather they say that all values are relative to time, place, persons and situations.  They believe that all rules about ethics and moral are acceptable because we cannot judge between them - they are subject to time, place, persons and situations..

The underlying point to Ethical Relativism is that morality depends on social customs.  E.g. in 13 American states the death penalty is legal, presumably because those societies agree with it, but in the other 37 states it is not legal, presumably, for the same reason.  Same with Canada - society as a whole does not think that capital punishment is just (i.e. moral or ethical) therefore in Canada capital punishment is not ethical.

The idea that  some moral rules are absolute while others are relative is important in a democracy  like Canada.  In fact we think it just (moral, ethical) to recognize the cultures of peoples from around the world and are, as a result, a very "relativist" society, while some ethics are absolute.

I used the example of a Rockwood Church, Emmanuel Canadian Reformed Church, and their depiction of a cemetery of white crosses, each representing a number of abortions performed in Canada each year.  This is a link to their website - Emmanuel CRC - the discussion was about moral universals - are there any moral questions that have only one right answer.  For the members of this church, abortion is wrong in any circumstance anywhere and at any time (I think, at least that was the over-riding message of their Hwy 7 display a few weeks ago).  So for these people that is one universal moral law.  Ashley K. also raised the issue of harm to innocent children, that for people throughout the world, it is an outrage when innocent children are harmed.  The Golden Rule also came up in discussion.  The nice thing about this discussion was that most of you, all of you, determined that there are very few moral universals in existence.

Crosbie and Bowie - Peace on Earth.

Now, fill in the chart - My Personal Moral Choices.