An Interesting Flight (Part 2)

The conversation shifted towards morality, which he believed did not exist. He "reasoned" from what we observe in nature there is no difference between animals and humans. Since the theory of evolution points to gradual evolution (which assumes a probable link between animals and humans) then there is no morality. Is there morality when the lion eats the gazelle? No. The lion eats the gazelle to survive, because that is the lion's nature. Since humans are animals (according to him) and survival of the fittest is real—then morality is only an illusion. He talked about all the killing done by mankind in order to rise to power, which comes from only the strong survive mentality. Unfortunately for him he cannot account for ethical epistemology, and it is something he even denied (he said morality was an illusion). Yet we find the notion of ethics in the likes of Richard Dawkins as he writes:

Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). [1]

What? So we are to "construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it." Based on what? We are to care for the poor and so forth, but all this is based on what? To my mind these people have nothing to ground their ethical propositions other than illusions, which they themselves have set up by their own conclusions. Yet, my new found acquaintance supposes he can tell me that we are to be regarded the same as animals. What? If we (humans) are at the top of the food chain according to his own worldview, how can we be or should be compared as equals? He implied that we should have some regard for animals. Huh? Why should we have any regard for anything other than ourselves under his worldview? I am not sure how he can ground his premises on epistemological grounds that are non-fallacious.

Nevertheless, the conversation continued, though, I really did not want to continue, since no progression was happening. The topic reaches its peak when he tells me, "There are no absolutes!" I told him that such a statement is an oxymoron, because such a statement is an absolute statement. There is a difference in humans being limited and producing theories that are incomplete with claiming there are no absolute truths. Even if absoluteness eludes us it makes practical sense to me that we seek truth because it is there to be found, and not because there is none to be had. The latter supports an infinite loop which leads to truth never being found. It very well could be that there are no absolutes and we are children of the absurd. I told him to read Richard Swinburne as he could do a better job than I could in the realm of philosophy for proofs for the existence of God. And so, we went our marry way onto our lives...

__________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins

Morality

The exploration of morality is a very interesting endeavor. It shows the complexity of the challenges we face as a human race. My focus will mostly be on the ontological aspect of morality. The ontology of morality can be defined as:

Ontological: Moral knowledge is about moral reality. How is that reality constituted? Three general possibilities present themselves. (a) Moral reality might be theological in nature, pertaining to (say) the will of God. (b) It might be a non-natural realm that is neither theological nor natural, but sui generis. (c) It might be comprehensible as a part of the natural world studied by science. Each of these possibilities, however, is beset with difficulties, and no viable fourth alternative has been conceived.[1]

Upon reflection on what has been stated one has to realize the predicament of the being of morality. However, it is important to note or understand that if (a) is not true then morality in the final analysis has no meaning. To have a relativistic worldview and give morality some sort of meaning without the concept of God is pure nonsense. For if there is no God then you have no ultimate judge that is incorruptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, and thus true justice will never prevail. So, then we are left with suppositions that are relativistic to specific individuals and situations. If moral knowledge is possible how can it be known under a relativistic worldview? It would be impossible, let us consider the following:

An argument of David Hume provides a more direct threat to the possibility of moral knowledge based on the fact that morals excite our passions and motivate us to act. If morals are based on reason so that they consist in true or false ideas, they would have to be in themselves incapable of having this direct influence on our actions (Hume, Treatise, Book III, Part I, Section I, Paragraph 6.) As he famously said, it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of a finger (Book II, Part III, Section III, Paragraph 6). The argument can be rendered for our purposes as a valid deductive argument from three premises: (1) If moral knowledge is possible, then some moral judgments are beliefs. (2) Our moral judgments by themselves necessarily give us some motivation to act, even without the accompaniment of already existing desires. (3) A belief by itself, unaided by already existing desires, can never give us any motivation to act. Therefore, moral judgments are not beliefs. Therefore, moral knowledge is impossible.[2]

So, Hume leaves us in a world of skepticism and seemingly in a void with no way out. Interestingly enough one cannot have it both ways. If moral knowledge is not possible then, how can it have value? How can the significance of moral knowledge be defined? If moral knowledge is possible and is of importance then surely the oughtness that is part of our being has value. What drives our desires? Nothing? What is guilt? Is guilt a mechanism of mere cultural experiences? These are weighty questions that ultimately define whether human existence has meaning or is insignificant.

If morality is meaningless then why should I try to attain perfection? For morality to be a rational endeavor it must have value. If it has no value it should not be pursued. In order for morality to have significance there must be Ultimate Righteousness. For a more in depth analysis of the significance or the insignificance of morality see the following:

The Moral Argument(s) For God's Existence

Only God gives meaning to morality, and thus I remain rational in believing that there is a God that gives meaning to the being of my moral existence.

_______________________
[1] Ontology
[2] Hume