Is there morality without God? This was the topic which I debated with Princeton philosopher Peter Singer on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera Monday. The segment is now up on the web and you can watch it here.
No, I haven't signed on as an Al-Jazeera regular. But the producers of the Riz Khan show on that network seemed a bit disappointed when Richard Dawkins agreed to appear on their show but then threw a tantrum when he found out he was scheduled to debate me. Instead Dawkins insisted on separate segments, with him going second, so that I wouldn't have a chance to challenge his arguments.
Singer is a much braver soul, and truth be told, he strikes me as more articulate and versatile than Dawkins. I suspect the only reason Singer isn't more of an atheist hero is because his social positions are so controversial. Basically Singer has declared that newborns have no rights and can be killed off during the first few weeks of their life, and he would vastly liberalize the rules for infanticide and euthanasia. Singer and I will be debating all this on December 3 at Princeton University. By all means come, but perhaps you should leave the grandparents at home.
In the Al-Jazeera exchange, Singer echoed a theme sounded by some of the street interviews: we don't need God to be good. And in this sense, who can disagree? Of course atheists can be kind and truthful and keep their oaths and contracts. No one is saying that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, or that unbelievers are incapable of it.
Rather, the deeper point is that morality seems built into human nature, and it doesn't have an adequate Darwinian explanation. Singer, an ardent Darwinist, admits this. He said on the show that evolution tells us what we are but it doesn't tell us anything about how we should be. Dawkins too writes that he is Darwinian in his biology but anti-Darwinian in his ethics. According to Dawkins, biology programs selfishness into our genes but we can rise above all that and behave unselfishly. Yet as I pointed out on the show, ants and cheetahs cannot do this. It makes no sense to say, "Bad cheetah! You shouldn't chase after that nice antelope." So where do we evolved primates get this other capacity that frequently operates against our self-interest? This is at least worth reflecting on.
One caller provoked Singer's derision by suggesting that even atheist philosophers get their morality from religion. Singer responded that this was factually wrong. He noted that John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham weren't religious. True, but their utilitarianism is based on the principle of equal respect for human beings, and that is a principle that came into the West because of Christianity. Singer attempted to deny this. He tried to locate this Western egalitarianism in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but he offered nothing to substantiate this far-fetched claim. If there were historians watching the show, I am sure they were shaking their heads. Certainly the American founders didn't get "all men are created equal" from the sayings of Epictetus or the meditations of Aurelius. By their own account, they attributed our egual dignity and our inalienable rights to the "Creator."
I'm looking forward to exploring this topic in greater detail with Singer on his home campus in December. But before that, I have my third debate with Christopher Hitchens coming up September 10 in St. Louis. As Hitchens himself put it, all our debates are different because each time we get better at countering what the other guy said the last time. If you'd like to find out more and get tickets, you can do so here.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 28)
46. A few months ago I saw two ducks guard the decomposing body of one of their fellow gaggle mates for at least two days.
Morality and emotion is not unique to "evolved primates".
Ryan Anderson at 5:41PM on Aug 14th 2008
47. If morality is divinely inspired and absolute, why is it not absolute across cultures?
Ryan Anderson at 5:41PM on Aug 14th 2008
48. But it's still a fact evolution is the explanation for morality.
Roch at 5:32PM on Aug 14th 2008
-----------------------------
No, it is not fact. Speculation would be a better word.
Observant at 5:43PM on Aug 14th 2008
49. Morality has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolutions law is survival of the fittest.
Observant at 5:30PM on Aug 14th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Survival of the fittest" is a popular paraphrase of Darwin's theories, never uttered by Darwin, but often attributed to him.
Biological evolution is more correctly stated "natural selection".
naturalpuppy at 5:45PM on Aug 14th 2008
50. Shannie, "also the capacity to commit all kinds of heinous acts."
I don't think that you have the capacity to commit heinous acts at all.
In fact I dont think that many people do. But with the right motivation, 'leaders' telling you what the 'good' thing to do is, vor example, anything is, in the end, justifiable.
not-pboyfloyd at 5:46PM on Aug 14th 2008
51. ?
not-pboyfloyd at 5:47PM on Aug 14th 2008
52. 46. If morality is divinely inspired and absolute, why is it not absolute across cultures?
xxxxxxxx
The history of morality isn't even consistent within the history of the Christian faith let alone across cultures. Norms have evolved over the centuries which suggests that either our ancestors were completely immoral or that mores change with time..
Pliny-the-in-between at 5:48PM on Aug 14th 2008
53. Morality is a social invention, and quite a successful one at that. It promotes societal cohesion, improves group efficiency, and establishes guidelines for acceptable behavior for a group.
There are a few problems with morality coming from a divine source, however. If it were true that this invention came from a truly universal force then it would be manifested in all cultures equally and through out time. But any anthropologist can refute that notion. At the time greeks invented democracy, the Aztecs were quite blissfully cutting the beating hearts out of people's chests and burning them on little fires while flaying the skin off of living people to wear. Not exactly a sign of universal majority. Even psychology refutes the notion of an objective morality. Each person develops their own criteria for what is moral and what is not. If there were some universal rule, then we'd see it reflected in our laws and traditions. Even 'thou shalt not kill' is waived for self defense and the treatment of enemies. So if there is an outside influence for morality, it's obviously incapable of asserting its own moral preference.
A second question for divine morality that is intriguing is where did God get its morals? What source imposed a sense of right and wrong on God? Why would God find rabbits and shellfish (not to mention homosexuality) to be an abomination deserving eternal damnation? It seems peculuar in the least.
But in regards to morality being an evolutionary trait, societies which utilize particular trends seem to thrive better than those who do not. For instance, most civilizations quickly adopt arbitrary execution by everyday citizens. Exceptions always exist for war, self defense, and occasionally capital punishment, but by large most societies develop a taboo against causal killing. How would this benefit our selfish genes. Well while killing others might, in the short term, improve one's genetic odds of passing on a genetic legacy, in the long term having access to a large breeding pool gives a higher success rate of reproduction. Societies develop marriage traditions to help insure productive unions of gametes, and encourage productive behavior to make sure offspring thrive and give the opportunety for later generations.
Also, since morality varies so greatly from society to society, we can explain certain particularities like why rabbits, shellfish, and homosexuality would be taboo. After all if rabbits are a sacred animal for another society, allowing their presence allows for societal discohesion. If the food base has a strong tradition of fishing, then getting shellfish undercuts the economy that support those fishermen. And if a society is trying to maximize breeding rates then disencouraging homosexual relationships is to be expected.
So there seems to me to be far more support in the argument of morality as an evolutionary development than the result of some divine imposition.
Somber at 5:48PM on Aug 14th 2008
54. Gah. That should read "Most societies tend to adopt prohibitations against arbitrary executions."
How embaressing.
Somber at 5:50PM on Aug 14th 2008
55. Hey Jude, don't let us down.
-Imagine no religion. I wonder if you can.
Saint Brian the Godless at 5:54PM on Aug 14th 2008
56. Question, Is it your moral code that repelled you or selfrighteousness?
Would like an honest answer please.
Observant at 5:24PM on Aug 14th 2008
-------------------------------------
You're thinking of you.
It was my moral code, but don't feel bad for not recognizing one when you see it.
Saint Brian the Godless at 5:54PM on Aug 14th 2008
57. Morality has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolutions law is survival of the fittest.
Observant at 5:30PM on Aug 14th 2008
-------------------------------
What makes an animal fit to survive? Whatever helps is to survive. You arent even considering that morality helps us to be more fit. Morality results im more of our species surviving. Hence, fitness. That's what it means. It doesn't have to be alonger neck or sharp teeth. It can be social behaviors too. Whatever results in more descendents.
Saint Brian the Godless at 6:00PM on Aug 14th 2008
58. notp-boy... why do we have jails? I would like to think I could not commit terrible 'acts'... but it is painfully obvious many do.. we can't blame it all on the 'leaders'... we are all responsible for our own actions...
Shannie at 6:02PM on Aug 14th 2008
59. Incidently, I was thinking of why an afterlife would be an evolutionary benefit. If you can convince a person to die for a cause, while you remain safe from harm, you are more likely to be able to spread your genes amid the survivors, who traditionally are women prohibited from combat. So by creating this notion of an afterlife, you convince others to die for meaningless causes while you survive. It's a way to eliminate the competition in your own society.
Somber at 6:04PM on Aug 14th 2008
60. Morality has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolutions law is survival of the fittest.
Observant at 5:30PM on Aug 14th 2008
xxx
not that you know the first thing about evolution, but a group that gets along and interacts with minimum hostility has a much better chance of being the fittest group.
That's axiomatic, not that you would know what that means. Your religion is also part of evolution, but what sort of part is indeed open to speculation. I'm thinking it might even be a precursor to genetic drift and I've said so here a couple of times.
Clif Kuplen at 6:04PM on Aug 14th 2008