As I said here, drawing lessons about morality from nature is stupid and naive. Each animal raises its children, mates, feeds, etc. in a slightly different way. Some of the differences can be pronounced in an extreme way. There is literally so much diversity that you can't come up with a universal rule, which is what we're really looking for. That's what everyone who wants to be able to stand up and confidently say "that's wrong" really wants.
The reason that the philosophers of the Enlightenment looked to nature was simple ignorance. The average child with a Discovery Channel-level education has come across enough material (even if they didn't fully absorb it) to know how pointless it is to try to divine moral truths from nature. You simply cannot do it because morality is not something like the laws of physics that nature offers up for empirical reproducibility. There are many modes of behavior, radically different, that have quite valid roles for a particular species, but not others, so the only thing we could get would be moral relativism in its purest form.
Yes, yes, you can come up with your own moral code, but the people who feel the need for morality are really looking for something universal. Sadly enough, something as intangible, ephemeral and self-serving as a moral code you made up is about the last thing that can be called universal. One could make a better case for household deity universalism.
Naturally there are those who get self-righteous about these things and say stuff like "are you saying atheists cannot be moral?" By even asking that question you are assuming moral universalism, and the truth is that two people cannot be equally 100% right while being polar opposites on an issue that implies objectivity.
I will answer that question for the secularists like this. If you do not believe in moral universalism that exists independent of nature and man's opinion, then no, an atheist cannot be moral. I cannot be moral. No one can be moral because morality doesn't exist! It's like pointing to a mechanical law that doesn't exist! Without a universal, revealed morality, morality cannot be said to exist as a law of life (if not of nature as well) because it exists only in the minds of each man, woman and child and even then only as something that is at least partially uniquely experienced. To say then, "can an atheist be moral" would make no more sense than to say "is an atheist bound to the Third Law of Quantum Superpositioning Flatulence."
If you don't understand the question, then either you are mentally incapable of groking it or you just don't want to face the ugly truth. Restated one more time, when someone comes up with their own theory of morality, it's like coming up with their own pet theory of gravitation. You cannot have two equally 100% true laws of gravitation. It stands to reason that if we are going to say "aha! That's the moral choice" then we ought to have some sort of universal truth on what is moral the way we have a law of gravity. If we cannot agree, and each stubbornly cling to our opinion (which is still not fact), then we ought to simply acknowledge the ugly fact that there are no moral truths at all.
Leave a comment