Why does one need a higher-order command to discern what is right and wrong?
- People want to defer their responsibility. We find it easier to ask for forgiveness than to do the right thing.
The morality of human beings grew from our rational capacities. We understood that our survival depended on us working together, which further developed into moral virtue when we’re in a state of abundance. This state of abundance was achieved when we advanced from being hunter-gatherers to agriculture.
One might say “how is this possible?”, well think of your own mothers and fathers. They gave up their money, time and freedom so you can survive. This is instinctual.
Morality is subjective in that my definition of virtues such as Justice, Moderation, Wisdom and Courage is different from yours. I think Justice refers to one’s own judgement of fairness and equality e.g. equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity or equality of rights. Moderation refers to one’s own judgement to refrain or desire certain things or when to refrain or desire such things e.g. food or wine or money. Wisdom refers to one’s own judgement of one’s character and how one pulls together the concepts of justice, moderation and courage. Courage refers to one’s own judgement of choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss.
One might say “these moral virtues were a product of God”, then why would moral virtues which were instinctual developed need an external explanation or a cosmological explanation such as god, when they were done by natural selection through trial and error to produce outcomes which lead to the betterment of the species. You being hungry doesn’t need a cosmological explanation, it’s a physical state which tells you to eat, so you can be alive. But for what you eat, how much you eat and your requirement to be alive does need an explanation but once again, this doesn’t require a cosmological argument. Firstly, What you eat can be said as anything except your own kind as this doesn’t lead to a betterment of the species. Secondly, How much you eat can be determined by who needs it the most, such the primary breadwinner as they would be required to get more food secondly, children might eat because they can’t get the food by themselves and they would require less, then the primary caretaker. But obviously, this arrangement is up for debate but the principle remains the same. Finally, You being alive doesn’t need a purpose. You’re free to define your own purpose. For the philosopher, the purpose of life is in attaining and practising wisdom while accepting his/her own eventual death. But for you, it can be anything. The reason for morality is so that “Anything” isn’t destructive to society or ensure chaos.
In the case of God, how do you know what they say to be moral? You still have a choice here and that choice shows your instincts and reasoning, in which case you don’t require God or if you follow whatever he says, in such case how is it moral when you follow blindly that which is “Good”, what defines “good”, is it God or YOUR perception of God? in which case you’re still making the final judgement. Your choice to believe as it appeals to you shows a subjective view of God and his/her creed.
For me(an atheist), it is determined through trial and error with the pursuit of what is deemed to be best for society as a whole and this can obviously change from time to time and from situation to situation and can be wrong. But just like the standards of law, we must develop standards of society and this pursuit achieves that with no external need. Morality is our development of standards for society through rational thought processes which lead to the betterment of society.
