UberKuh

(The following is taken from the second edition of The UberLetter.)

:.

How does one get "ought" from "is" if "is" is all there is? Some philosophically educated theists ask this question of atheists. That is, how does one create a moral standard from reality if reality does not already contain one? Or, if nature is all that exists, then what tells nature how to act?

Interpreted correctly, theists do not intend this question to be a question at all. Instead, they intend it to be a declarative statement that humans cannot create their own moral standards and that only that which created humans can. And of course theists believe that God is the sole moral authority.

Those who disagree with this statement may argue, as I have witnessed, that theists have no explanation as to how God can be moral. If God creates his own moral standard, they ask, then what prevents him from breaking rules as he sees fit and how is this moral? The argument is that moral action implies good and bad behavior as determined by an outside authority. If humans require an outside moral authority, then so must God.

A common resolution is offered that humans are capable of determining their own moral standards. Although these standards are imperfect, they work most of the time for most people who try to abide by them. I agree that humans are capable of creating their own moral standards, but I disagree that this resolution answers the question that underlies the original question raised by theists. For, no answer has been given as to how a moral standard can be created without an outside moral authority. Specifically, where does the chain of moral authority end, if anywhere?

Think of the problem in simple terms. Theists may argue that humans require an outside moral authority because moral standards require rules that cannot be arbitrarily altered by those who try to abide by them. In other words, morality requires an outside judge and rule makers along with agents who live by those rules and can be punished if they break them or rewarded if they do not. On the other side of this argument, atheists may contend that an outside moral authority must be moral itself and this requires an authority outside it, ad infinitum. Thus, atheists conclude that humans do not require an outside moral authority.

Do you see the problem? Theists argue something (outside requirement). Atheists find a flaw in that argument (infinite regress), assert that it does not change anything (moral autonomy), but never explain why. I agree that requiring a moral authority creates an infinite chain of higher moral authorities, but this alone does not explain and defend how humans can be their own moral authorities.

We have now located the elusive, seemingly supernatural fly in the atheist's purely naturalistic ointment: How can moral agents create their own moral standards? How do humans get "ought" from "is" in an is-only world? The answer is that each of these two words represents one half of the same equation. Part of being human is learning to survive; adaptation is how we evolve. One adaptive need is social order. This order requires rules and principles for peaceful coexistence. Thus, it is only natural that we naturally and autonomously create our own moral standards as a way of meeting an adaptive need, which enables us to survive. "Ought" evinces a better "is" and, in turn, "is" evinces how "ought" ought to be. "Ought" and "is" are one and the same.

• Printer-friendly version
• Add new comment
• 2099 reads