Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 2

This is Part 2 in my three part series about the Nature of Morality. You can find Part 1 here.

In the first part on morality, I established several things: 

1. Universalism is demanded by any moral system. 
2. Morality is universal.
3. Morals aren't based on public opinion.

The only question left to answer is: What is morality based on?

Finding the answer to this question is no simple task since it has been debated for literally centuries but allow me to sift through it all and figure out the truth. 

I must first denounce divine morality before it is ever seriously asserted (theologians have done so for centuries). Morality cannot be based on a divine being because once you set foot on that territory, it begs the question: which divine being? There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of gods/demi-gods conceived throughout history, many times, arguing for different moral systems. To assert the moral rationale of one god would be to deny the systems established by the thousands of other gods. Pascal's Wager has been heavily disproved.

But there are larger reasons for the denunciation of divine morality. Allow me to expound on my reasoning by concentrating on the two most popular religions' today, and Judaism (the mother of the monotheistic religions).

There are many divine decrees that we all ignore today because they are viewed as cruel and unusual if not immoral. Let's take, for example, the Biblical and Torah punishment for breaking the Sabbath:

Exodus 31:

14: Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15: Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

In Islam, the punishment for theft is to cut off the theifs' hands:

“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned [i.e. committed] as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah. And Allaah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 5:38] 

I would hope that anyone reading this would believe that such actions are immoral, yet they are the decrees of an Abrahamic God. Based on what I know, no one today is killed for breaking the Sabbath and few Muslim countries today chop off people's hands (but feel free to prove me wrong).

The world of religion has greatly changed. Where once the act of God is considered divinely just, today we shrivel away from the call to kill each other for not relaxing. Every day our government or people don't kill those who work on Sunday, we are ignoring the word of God. The very fact that you would view such divine decrees on a scale of morality shows that God's calls can be judged by an independent standard; to tells us that God doesn't establish the good, rather, he is judged by it.

If you still aren't convinced, Christopher Hitchens laid out a challenge to all theists, and so far hasn't gotten an answer (that I know of, and including myself). He asked:

"Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an 'infidel'. [Then] Name a wicked action or saying that is justified by faith."

The challenge is the best way to summarize my position. Immoral things are/have been preached for the divine, while all moral things don't need to be.

There are plenty of debates about the source of morality and the divine; here is one with Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. It is the first part and at the end of each video you will see a link to the following part to watch the full thing. Al Sharpton isn't very impressive and if you are really interested in the debate, look for William Lane Craig. Although he has some flawed arguments, he's the most formidable theist opponent to atheists in this area. 

If a universal moral standard does exist and is not based on any specific deity, how do we determine if something is right or wrong? This is where the Consequentialism and Deontology come in.

Since I ascribe to a kind of consequentialism, let's talk about Deontology first. The most famed supporter (if not creator) of this moral system is Immanuel Kant.

Kant believed that we can base moral requirements (decide if something is right or wrong)  by what he called the "Categorical Imperative." He promoted, like his predecessors, and consequentialists, that reason be the basis for determining the moral standard. He talked of many things such as free will (still hotly debated), virtues, hypothetical imperatives and moral, but the categorical imperative established the following:

1. There are absolute, unconditional requirements that assert its authority on all actions and circumstances.
2. Such actions are judged as right or wrong by being moral as an ends in themselves (as opposed to consequentialism). 
3. He said "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

In other words, there are things that are right and wrong and must be universally applied to all circumstances. These acts can be judged as moral or immoral, not based on their consequences, but the act themselves. For example, lying should be considered universally wrong, as should things like murder and rape (among many others). 

The flaws with Kanatian morality is obvious and most usually shown by the "Inquiring murderer" hypothetical scenario. I'll explain the scenario, but to remove the hypothetical aspect from the example, I'll frame it in true historical events. 

It is 1940, and World War II is has exploded as the United States joined "Europe's fight." For years, the anti-semetic Nazi regime (amongst the larger anti-semetic Europe) had began finding, labeling, and soon imprisoning Jews (amongst gays, minorities, political opponents and more) as the Holocaust came underway. 

A Jewish family, not different from Ann Frank's is hiding with a non-Jewish family in Germany-invaded Poland. Nazi soldiers, on the search for "rats," come to the house asking the family if they have seen any Jews. 

What should the family do? Tell the soldiers that they have Jews hiding in the basement? or lie to the soldiers to protect their Jewish neighbors? 

Under Kant's moral theory, things are determined as moral or not in all circumstances. Therefore, it is the moral obligation of the family not to lie, and to tell the truth at all times. Lying would be immoral, even in this real historical example. The family is best off telling the soldiers the truth, thereby their actions are moral in-and-of themselves, and the Jewish family is taken away to labor camps and eventually thrown into ovens after being deprived of basic necessities. 

This is no hypothetical example that philosophers conjured up to show the flaws of another moral philosophy at all costs; it's history. Surely such a system shouldn't have been followed during World War II or at any other time period. 

With Deontology denounced, I'll delve into consequentialism in the last part of the series, Part 3. (I wanted to include it but it is just too long).

Part 3 is coming soon!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!