The Inadequacy of Atheistic Moral Relativism

Atheism, in its rejection of a higher power or divine authority, often leads to a reliance on moral relativism. However, this approach to morality is fundamentally flawed and ultimately undermines our sense of morality.

The Problem of Moral Subjectivity

Moral relativism posits that moral judgments are subjective and vary from person to person, culture to culture. This view is exemplified by philosopher Richard Rorty, who argues that “there is no objective moral truth” (Rorty, 1989). However, this perspective raises significant concerns:

  • Moral arbitrariness: If morality is purely subjective, then what one individual considers morally justifiable might be deemed reprehensible by another. This leads to a situation where moral judgments are arbitrary and lack any objective basis.
  • Cultural relativism: Moral relativism often implies that cultural norms and values should be respected, even if they conflict with our own moral intuitions. However, this approach can lead to the acceptance of harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation or forced child marriage.

The Failure of Atheistic Morality

Atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have attempted to develop a morality based on reason and human well-being. However, their approaches are ultimately unsatisfactory:

  • Dawkins’ moral Darwinism: Dawkins suggests that morality can be derived from evolution, with altruistic behaviors emerging as a means of survival (Dawkins, 2006). However, this perspective reduces morality to a mere byproduct of natural selection, stripping it of any inherent value or objective significance.
  • Hitchens’ moral individualism: Hitchens argues that individuals should be free to make their own moral choices, without interference from religious or state authorities (Hitchens, 2007). While this approach emphasizes personal autonomy, it neglects the need for a shared moral framework and ignores the potential consequences of unchecked individualism.

The Need for Objective Moral Standards

In contrast to atheistic moral relativism, objective moral standards provide a necessary foundation for a coherent and functional morality:

  • Moral realism: The existence of objective moral truths provides a basis for making moral judgments that are independent of personal opinions or cultural norms.
  • Universal human rights: The recognition of universal human rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and dignity, serves as a foundation for a shared moral framework.

Addressing Counterarguments

Atheist thinkers might respond by arguing that:

  • Morality can be based on reason alone: However, this approach neglects the complexities of moral issues, which often involve conflicting values and uncertain outcomes.
  • Religion has been a source of moral harm: While it is true that religion has been used to justify harmful practices, this does not negate the possibility of objective moral truths or the need for a higher authority.

Conclusion

Atheistic moral relativism fails to provide a coherent and logical explanation of morality. By relying on subjective moral judgments and rejecting objective moral standards, atheism undermines our sense of morality and neglects the complexity of moral issues in the world. In contrast, objective moral standards provide a necessary foundation for a functional and shared morality.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve Books.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.

Note: The above response is an example of how one could structure a persuasive argument critiquing atheism from a logical perspective. It engages with prominent atheist thinkers, addresses common counterarguments, and presents a compelling case for why atheistic moral relativism is inherently flawed.