Good Without God: Can Natural Explanations Succeed?

In a previous post we began looking at moral philosophy.  I began by exploring the concept of God as “the Good”.  Then I explained how this translates into the real, objective moral facts and duties which we intuitively know exist.

Today we’re turning our attention to materialistic, non-theistic attempts to do the same. But before we do that, let's set out the goalpost again.  We are trying to explain the existence of objective moral facts and duties:

“A standard of right and wrong – good and evil – which superintends human actions.  Moral facts which exist independently of human minds, to which we have a duty to conform our lives.”

Can these two most common secular attempts to ground objective morality successfully clear that goal?  Let’s find out.

The Empathy Instinct:

The first common attempt appeals to human empathy to explain the existence of morality.  You can find instances of this on the YouTube channel “Counter Arguments”.  It sounds something like this:

“Accounting for morality is simple.  Modern neuroscience has revealed the existence of ‘mirror neurons’ in our brains.  These produce in us feelings of empathy for other people.  This, in turn, gives us the desire to help people and not be cruel to them.  That’s where morality comes from, not from a mythical deity.”

Problem 1: “Explaining” vs “Explaining Away”:

The biggest problem with this explanation is it explains the wrong thing.  Those who propose this are approaching the matter as if it’s an evolutionary behavioral question.  But it isn't.

Remember, the question at we’re trying to address is:

“Why is there a mind-independent standard of moral facts and duties?”

But the empathy attempt furtively substitutes this question:

“Why do humans intuitively believe in moral facts and feel the need to adhere to them?”

Well, answering the second question does nothing to explain the first.  It just explains why humans exhibit certain empathetic behaviors.  If anything, it explains AWAY  moral facts as an illusion produced by our mirror neurons.

That is to say, it would lead us to believe there really isn’t a moral standard superintending human actions.  It’s just that our neurology gives us the impression that there is one.


Problem 2: Why is that Impulse a Lawgiver?

The second problem follows from the first.  That is, if we know our sense of morality is just a biological impulse coming from our mirror neurons … why treat it like a divine lawgiver?

After all, human beings are subject to all kinds of impulses:

I'm willing to ignore all of those impulses whenever I think its best.  I do that every time I go to work or change a diaper.  But if empathy is just one more on that list... why not do the same with it?  Why not ignore empathy if it makes rational sense in the moment?  Why not say:

"My mirror neurons are telling me to be empathetic.  But that's just a feeling. It will pass.  I'm better off if I ignore that right now."

Conversely, with all those other impulses on the menu, why make empathy the arbiter of good and evil?  Why not a different one?  Why can't I say:

"You choose empathy to be your moral north star.  I choose lust and elation.  To each his own, I suppose."

The only way to answer is to appeal to a higher moral law which demands special deference be paid to empathy.   But that's precisely what this attempt just explained away.

Human Flourishing:

The second attempt comes from the likes of Samuel Harris, author of The Moral Landscape.  Here’s what it sounds like:

“Modern science allows us to study what leads to human flourishing on both and individual and societal level.  By developing this area of science, we can provide a purely naturalistic standard which has a far more concrete basis than the dictates of a Holy Book.”

Now, this one has the benefit of potentially resulting in an objective standard.  But there's still some issues...

Problem 1: An Arbitrary, Human Standard:

First, while you can certainly create a science of human flourishing, there is nothing in science which proves this is a moral imperative.  Science can tell us how things ARE.  It cannot tell us how things SHOULD BE.  So before this moral theory can get on its feet, one first has to sneak in a moral dogma:

Human flourishing = Moral Goodness

That axiom might seem fairly obvious to many people, but it’s still arbitrary.  Why not the flourishing of one’s particular tribal identity?  Or one’s own self? 

Or heck… why privilege the human species at all?  We’re just one among many on this planet.  Why not instead choose the flourishing of dolphins?  Or the wellbeing of the Earth’s ecosystem?  In the end, the assertion of human flourishing as the axiom of moral goodness is - at best - our opinion about ourselves.

Recall that we were trying to explain the existence of a standard which doesn’t depend on the arbitrary opinions of human beings.  Well… this attempt is entirely dependent on the human opinion that egalitarian human flourishing is a moral axiom.


Problem 2: Nothing Is Off Limits:

The other problem facing this “Human Flourishing = Goodness” idea is that everything would come down to a consequentialist argument of what would aid human flourishing.  There would be nothing which is intrinsically wrong or always off limits.  There is only what would be imprudent or imprudent for advancing the human race.

I mean... let's just review some stuff which human societies have justified in the name of flourishing:

• Abandoning the elderly
• Killing the deformed
• Euthanizing the mentally ill
• Human medical experimentation
• Genocide of supposedly troublesome people groups
• Slavery of supposedly subservient people groups

If this moral theory is correct, you couldn’t unequivocally condemn those practices.  The best you could do is argue that a particular instance of the practice didn’t adequately promote human flourishing.

On the other hand, suppose you could make a good argument that one of the above is the best course of action in a given situation.  Suppose someone made a damn good argument that euthanizing the elderly was best for everyone.  Is there anything which stops it from being on the table?  Nope.

Now, consider how we sense that there are good and bad ways to achieve human flourishing.  There are certain things which shouldn't be done - EVEN IF they could be scientifically shown to advance the human race.  Our moral intuitions rebel against this kind of consequentialism.

Even if human flourishing is objectively good - (and I think it is) - it cannot be the highest good. There must be a standard of righteousness which stands above it.

Aiming Higher:

Let’s take a step back.  What we were trying to explain was the existence of an objective moral standard which superintends our actions, and isn’t a product of human imagination.

The key problem with these naturalistic attempts – or any naturalistic attempt – is they don’t have the appropriate philosophical building materials for the job.  They are limited to human opinions or human feelings.  But we need something which transcends those.

We need a higher lawgiver.