The Evasion of Moral Objectivity: A Critique of Atheistic Ethics

Atheism, in its various forms, has long struggled to provide a coherent account of moral principles. While many atheists argue that morality can exist independently of divine revelation, this assertion raises significant questions about the nature and binding force of these principles.

The Problem of Moral Objectivity

Atheistic ethics often rely on subjective moral relativism, where moral principles are based on personal opinions or cultural norms. However, this approach fails to provide a universal, objective foundation for morality. As philosopher C.S. Lewis notes:

“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard… You are, in fact, comparing them with some Real Morality.” (1)

Without an objective moral framework, moral principles become arbitrary and lack any genuine binding force.

The Failure of Moral Sentimentalism

Some atheists argue that moral principles can be derived from human emotions or sentiments. Dawkins, for instance, suggests that morality arises from our “selfish genes” (2). However, this approach is insufficient, as it:

  • Fails to explain why certain moral principles are universally recognized and accepted.
  • Reduces moral obligations to mere personal preferences.
  • Cannot account for the objective wrongness of actions like torture or murder.

As Hitchens acknowledges, “If we were not naturally inclined to sympathize with others, morality would have no basis at all” (3). However, this sentimentalism does not provide a sufficient foundation for moral objectivity.

The Inadequacy of Evolutionary Explanations

Atheists often point to evolutionary theory as an explanation for the emergence of moral principles. Michael Ruse, for example, argues that morality is an “illusion” created by evolution to promote group survival (4). However, this approach:

  • Fails to explain why we should care about the well-being of others if it doesn’t directly benefit us.
  • Reduces moral principles to mere biological imperatives, lacking any inherent value or dignity.
  • Cannot account for the existence of altruistic behaviors that contradict self-interest.

The Need for a Transcendent Moral Framework

In contrast, a theistic worldview provides a coherent explanation for moral objectivity. Russell, despite his atheism, acknowledged that “the existence of God is necessary to give morality a firm foundation” (5). A transcendent moral framework:

  • Provides an objective standard for moral principles.
  • Grounds moral obligations in a higher authority.
  • Explains the universal recognition and acceptance of certain moral principles.

Addressing Counterarguments

1. The “Euthyphro Dilemma”

Atheists often argue that, if God exists, morality is either arbitrary (based on divine fiat) or independent of God (making God unnecessary). However, this dilemma:

  • Falsely assumes a simplistic understanding of divine nature and moral agency.
  • Ignores the possibility of a non-arbitrary, divinely ordained moral framework.

2. Moral Progress

Atheists argue that moral progress is possible without divine revelation. While true, this:

  • Fails to explain why certain moral principles are universally recognized as objective improvements.
  • Does not account for the existence of moral obligations independent of human opinion or cultural norms.

Conclusion

Atheistic ethics struggle to provide a coherent account of moral principles. Without an objective moral framework, morality becomes arbitrary and lacks binding force. A transcendent moral framework, grounded in a higher authority, is necessary to explain the universal recognition and acceptance of certain moral principles. Atheism, in its various forms, fails to provide a logical explanation for moral objectivity, leaving us with a choice: either abandon objective morality or acknowledge the existence of a higher power.

References:

(1) C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity” (1943) (2) Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene” (1976) (3) Christopher Hitchens, “God Is Not Great” (2007) (4) Michael Ruse, “Taking Darwin Seriously” (1986) (5) Bertrand Russell, “Human Society in Ethics and Politics” (1954)

By challenging the assumptions of atheistic ethics, we can reexamine our understanding of moral principles and the role of a higher power in shaping our moral obligations.