jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As promised I will put foward the argument that atheism cannot provide a theory of ethics. First I will define what I mean by ethics.
Ethics tells us two things: what are the right and wrong things to do and why they are right or wrong. For instance the Bible tells us that murder is wrong, the what, because human beings are made in the image of God and God said that murder is wrong, the why.
Now atheism is the beleif in the nonexistance of God. Since the vast majority of atheists are seculer humanists it is this form that I will have in mind not every abhorent view possible. So basically they do not believe in any higher power. This leaves open a number of possible foundations for ethics.
1. A naturalistic ethics, or based on nature somehow (evolutionary ethics).
2. A socialistic ethics.
3. Some practical ethical theory, utilitarianism for example.
4. Emotive ethical theories.
5. Or some form of foundationalism or intrinsic ethics, Kant's theories.
Now I will critique each possibility to show that they do not produce an objective foundation for ethics, this is a very important point to grasp. In order for ethics to be the same for everyone it must be objective. If it is not objective than it is not normative. Now for the critique.
1. This possibility commits the naturalistic fallacy, you cannot move from is to ought.
2. This theory says that communities or societies decide what is right or wrong but the problem is that social opinions change. Also societies don't agree on what is right and wrong thus making ethics subjective to each society not objective across the board.
3. Practical theories work on practical grounds but they do not furnish objective standereds of ethics. What works today might not work tommorow.
4. Emotive theories describe only why people feel a certian way not why we should act a certian way.
5. The problem with this option is that it makes the ethical endeavor circuler at the end of the day. A certian ethical beleif is declared to be a basic beleif, once I ask why it is so the person defending the beleif must give reasons for this to be so but are these reasons more foundational than the beleif or are they more basic? If so than the original beleif is not basic or foundational at all. In order for it to be basic it must be basic which is the only reason I can give for it to be basic, which is circuler reasoning. Also it makes ethics subjective because we may not agree on what is basic beleifs or not.
Now this is not a direct logical argument from the denial of God to no ethics but it is an indirect one. Also I could not give each different theory full justice but only a broad critique, how the critique fits each possible example of these theories would change from theory to theory.
Ethics tells us two things: what are the right and wrong things to do and why they are right or wrong. For instance the Bible tells us that murder is wrong, the what, because human beings are made in the image of God and God said that murder is wrong, the why.
Now atheism is the beleif in the nonexistance of God. Since the vast majority of atheists are seculer humanists it is this form that I will have in mind not every abhorent view possible. So basically they do not believe in any higher power. This leaves open a number of possible foundations for ethics.
1. A naturalistic ethics, or based on nature somehow (evolutionary ethics).
2. A socialistic ethics.
3. Some practical ethical theory, utilitarianism for example.
4. Emotive ethical theories.
5. Or some form of foundationalism or intrinsic ethics, Kant's theories.
Now I will critique each possibility to show that they do not produce an objective foundation for ethics, this is a very important point to grasp. In order for ethics to be the same for everyone it must be objective. If it is not objective than it is not normative. Now for the critique.
1. This possibility commits the naturalistic fallacy, you cannot move from is to ought.
2. This theory says that communities or societies decide what is right or wrong but the problem is that social opinions change. Also societies don't agree on what is right and wrong thus making ethics subjective to each society not objective across the board.
3. Practical theories work on practical grounds but they do not furnish objective standereds of ethics. What works today might not work tommorow.
4. Emotive theories describe only why people feel a certian way not why we should act a certian way.
5. The problem with this option is that it makes the ethical endeavor circuler at the end of the day. A certian ethical beleif is declared to be a basic beleif, once I ask why it is so the person defending the beleif must give reasons for this to be so but are these reasons more foundational than the beleif or are they more basic? If so than the original beleif is not basic or foundational at all. In order for it to be basic it must be basic which is the only reason I can give for it to be basic, which is circuler reasoning. Also it makes ethics subjective because we may not agree on what is basic beleifs or not.
Now this is not a direct logical argument from the denial of God to no ethics but it is an indirect one. Also I could not give each different theory full justice but only a broad critique, how the critique fits each possible example of these theories would change from theory to theory.