I guess everybody who reads the blog is familiar with my view that self-sacrificial moral behavior is not rationally grounded on atheism. Well, I got a great (snarky) question from a commenter (Gregory Lewis) who wanted me to explain WHY self-sacrifical morality is rational if Christian theism is true. So I wrote the stuff below to try to answer it. I’m not completely happy with it, but I tried.
Note, this is not exactly theologically correct. I do understand that salvation is by grace, and that doing good deeds is part of sanctification, not justificiation. I.e. – the good deeds do not save you, but they do affect your relationship with God, and everyone else, in the after-life.
My response
The question to be answered is why should a person act in a self-sacrificial way when it does not give them pleasure and may even result in punishment. On atheism, self-sacrifice is irrational because morality is illusory, we have no free will, and life is temporary. Your life purpose on atheism is to be as happy as possible before you die, and there is no room for self-sacrificial love just to be good. So it is not rational to sacrifice yourself for the “moral law”. There is no moral law, on atheism. That’s what I mean when I say that morality is not rational on atheism. I mean self-sacrificial morality is not rational, and it seems to me that this morality is the only kind that counts.
But here’s what is true on Christian theism:
1) the moral law is real (objective) not subjective and not arbitrary
2) humans have free will – we are not biologically determined
3) there is a real Creator/Designer who says we ought to obey the moral law
4) there is a final judgment where our free choices to obey or not are measured
5) obedience to the moral law affects the quality (not duration) of that eternal life
6) the author of the moral law loves us self-sacrificially
And what does all of this mean, on Christian Theism:
There is an objective moral standard that specifies what we (morally) ought to do on Christian theism, like self-sacrificial love. Our capacity to make a choice to accomodate that moral obligation is real, because we have consciousness and free will on Christian theism. There is a real way we ought to be, and a real capacity to choose to be that way. But sometimes being good that way sets us back, personally. Is self-sacrificial love rational when it reduces our pleasure in this life? What happens when doing the right thing results in LESS happiness in this life and maybe even LESS time to live in this life? Is self-sacrifice rational on Christianity?
Well, there are two things better than a finite amount of happiness in this life and a finite duration of this life. And that’s an infinite amount of happiness and an infinite duration of life. If we could get that by taking a little short-term pain here and now, then it would make sense for us to suffer now and get something better later, if the world really were designed that way as a matter of fact. And that’s what Christian theists believe is the case.
So, on Christian theism, self-sacrificial love is rational because it is in our own best interest to do so AND because it’s what we were designed to do. It’s the way the world is that makes it rational, and that objective reality can be investigated and sustained in a debate using the standard arguments. Self-sacrifice is rational on Christian theism because there is a state of affairs that makes it rational.
But there is more to it than just self-interest. You have to remember that Jesus’ self-sacrificial death on our behalf is a kind of call to action as well. It may be that many or even most Christians never think about rational self-interest. They think of relationships. They look around at the world and they are willing to take on the obligations of the moral law in the context of having a relationship with God. They don’t think of obeying the moral law as a way to get eternal happiness and eternal life, but as the only possible rational response to another person who sacrifices themselves to love them. It’s not just that we want eternal life, or eternal happiness. We want a relationship with that person who loves us. We have a desire to be loved in a non-temporary way. We want to know that other person as he really is. I would not call that desire self-interest.
I’m thinking of what I feel like when I ask a woman to spend time talking to me over a meal that I will pay for, and she says yes. She probably isn’t thinking that she is doing this in order to be made 100% happy with no demands on her own behavior. There is something more going on there than self-interest – she wants to have a relationship, and she is willing to make adjustments to have that relationship. Most Christians aren’t thinking that they are going to get eternal life or eternal happiness. They want to know who this God person is and they are not concerned about the fact that this person wants them to act a certain way as part of that relationship. We want the relationship. It’s rational for us to act in a way that keeps the relationship going.
Normally, to get a relationship started, I give a woman a book to read or a DVD to watch. That’s not fun for her. But it is a gift. Either she is going to want to know this person who chose her or she isn’t. Maybe she thinks I will make her happy, but that’s not why she takes that first step to follow me. She wants the relationship.
Related posts
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“Normally, to get a relationship started, I give a woman a book to read or a DVD to watch.”
lol that’s hilarious
LikeLike
Hey! It works! The first thing I did with a new friendship I’m working on is send the woman a package last Christmas like the one I sent you (and a dozen other people – it was a standard package this year). Hers had all the stuff yours had, but also a book on economics. She is a bit leftist on economics, so I had to see if she was open to talking with me about it. She is halfway through the book and I am only one quarter through it – we’re supposed to be reading it together and then talking about it to see if either of us should shift. I was so glad to have Paul Ryan’s plan to fall back on, because some of the points she made would have been really hard to respond to without Paul Ryan’s plan to back me up.
But about giving DVDs and books… how else can you tell if a woman is willing to follow than by giving her things to do? One woman I like gave me a 16 question interview that I am busy working on as a following up to our initial 3-hour phone call. You would NOT like the things we talked about – they are all very serious. But I LOVED it. I can hardly wait until the next time!
I am pretty average in what everyone can see. I can lift an average amount of weight, I’m of average height, average weight, and look pretty average. The only way that I can stand out is if someone asks me questions about what my plan is! I think women are better when they try to see how much you have thought about the future, and how you’ve prepared for it. On that criteria, I am in great shape.
LikeLike
This weekend I will meet with a friend who has a very relativistic mindset who wants to know why I believe what I do. She has been asking questions, is curious about my “scientific arguments” to confirm what I believe, but nonetheless she seems excited to hear me talk about it, and have discussion on it. I’m excited too, as this is the first time anyone I’ve met has ever been genuinely receptive to apologetics with what appears (so far) to be an open mind. I’ve been brushing up on Kalam all week (referencing posts here of course) and trying to cover all the angles. I figure the universe is a great place to start!
Eventually I hope we can start watching debates, and get into even deeper topics for discussion!
This isn’t like me at all! I’m really REALLY excited about this!
LikeLike
Kalam and the string of scientific discoveries that led up to the big bang is the best place to start. Fine-tuning is also good if you can explain strong nuclear force and chemical diversity. Origin of life is good if you can explain DNA as sequences of information.
LikeLike
Not following this.
Doesn’t “self-sacrificial” necessarily mean the person never anticipates a reward?
You seem to be saying under naturalism, it is only rationale to sacrifice upon an anticipated future benefit. Yet under Christian theism, you explain it is rationale to sacrifice upon an anticipated future benefit: 1) quality (not duration) of eternal reward and 2) enhanced relationship with an entity you desire an enhanced relationship.
Other than timing (naturalism’s reward is pre mortem; Christian theism’s reward is post mortem) what is the difference?
LikeLike
Great comment, man.
Look, I am exposing myself by talking about this. I never realized that this was such a thorny issue until I wrote about it. It’s hard to give a reason to BE MORAL that doesn’t assume morality! (Work with me here, pretend we’re on the same side and just trying to solve the problem). I tried to talk about self-interest, but I felt that this did not capture what I’m really doing, which is really more like watching what Jesus does and then how he rose from the dead and then saying “it’s ok if I suffer for other for doing right just like he suffered, because in the end things work out fine”. So that is my reason. I want to be good, but I don’t want to do it if it makes no sense. The fact that this suffering is what I was designed for, and that it is taking place as part of an ongoing relationship with the person who loves me most, makes it make sense to me. What do you call that? I tap at a keyboard all day, but in the back of my mind I keep thinking “how can I act to honor this relationship?”. You don’t think about Heaven and hell when you are being good. You think about that ongoing relationship and wanting to hold up your end of it – because that’s what you were designed to do. You have an obligation just by being born. Like the obligation to drink water – you have the obligation to relate to that Creator – you were made to do it.
OK that’s all preliminary.
On naturalism, the self-interest is emotional – you feel good and then you die. On Christian theism, the self-interest is flourishing – you become the thing you were meant to be in relation to the Creator. There is an objective design and you are being fulfilled when you act to get in with that design.
Now don’t forget about the other things I said about atheism not ground moral value, moral duties, free will, a judgment that is not fallible based on whether good or evil deeds are hidden (they will ALL be taken into account in this judgment, so it ALL matters), and life after death. Each of those things is needed to make the idea of doing right according to the design rational. Also, this design is the way the world really is. Why settle for temporary emotional satisfaction when you can have eudaimonia in a purposeful universe?
LikeLike
Self-sacrifice does not imply a lack of reward. Jesus sacrificed himself, but he did it for a purpose. His purpose was that things would work out better in the end as a result. He didn’t just do it because it felt good inside; he did it because the Father told him to and because he had faith in the Father’s plans. When you sacrifice to pay all your debts and begin investing smartly, you are expecting a reward, but there is still a sacrifice.
The problem with naturalism is that some good sacrifices deeds do not bring any expected benefits in this life.
Some good deeds DO always bring their own reward, such as failure to commit a crime when a police officer is watching you from across the street. But in numerous other cases, no one is watching. In those cases, self-sacrifice is irrational unless you know that God is watching.
LikeLike
Wintery, would you sacrifice yourself for your children (ie. die in their place) even if you knew (hypothetically speaking, of course) that there was no heaven or hell, and that God did not exist?
A simple yes or no will do. You don’t need to think about it too long, because in a real situation you might not have the chance to think much at all. If you, the Wintery Knight, were an atheist, would you be prepared to die to save someone you love, knowing there is no afterlife?
LikeLike
The question is not is it permissible. The question is, is it rational. When it becomes too inconvenient to hide Jews or free slaves or defend the unborn, what will I do then? When doing good is rational, it is easier to do it. It’s not rational on atheism, and as atheism becomes widespread in society, we are going to see more and more selfish, hedonistic behavior because it is HARD to be good, and it’s even HARDER when it makes no sense to do it. It’s not about the bare choice, it’s about the background that enables you to do the right thing or not.
Nothing against you personally.
Also don’t forget about the other things I said about atheism not grounding moral value, moral duties, free will, a judgment that is not fallible based on whether good or evil deeds are hidden (they will ALL be taken into account in this judgment, so it ALL matters), and life after death. Each of those things is needed to make the idea of doing right rational.
I have to repeat that because you can’t just assume those things are there on atheism. What sense does good and evil make if you are a robot and there is no objective standard of right and wrong anyway?
LikeLike
I accept that it’s not rational. Heroism is not rational, if it were we would not have the word heroism. I’m asking you, would you do it anyway?
LikeLike
Hey up.
When I asked the question, I wasn’t suggesting there aren’t good reasons to self sacrifice on Christian Theism. But if you want an argument, these reasons have to be better than Atheism can provide. And I don’t see how.
As has already been pointed out, the reasons you give are enlightened self interest. It is better for you to enter into a relationship with God, and that the goods post mortem are so great as to defeat any costs of self-sacrifice. If you’re worried that this sounds like pelagianism, you can express the same sentiment in a way to avoid the ‘be a good boy and get paradise’ idea: indirectly, being justified and living out the Christian walk are constitutive to heaven, or something like that.
Obviously, self-sacrifice can bring apparent advantages on atheism (take Atheism to be the one of most western Atheists of naturalism etc., not just ‘not-Theism’) too, but that’s not guaranteed: if I get shot and killed trying to shelter Jews in the time of the holocaust, then I’ve clearly lost out: no afterlife, no nothing. So on atheism, moral acts aren’t necessary a benefit.
But it is an exceptionally dangerous move to claim that this means its irrational to do the right thing. It opens you up to the reversal that actually Atheism really provides the opportunity for genuinely worthy sacrifical acts: I really can just lose out. Yet on Christianity these acts are ultimately to my benefit, and this makes it hard to claim they are genuinely self-sacrifical. If I give money to charity in the knowledge that an anonymous benefactor will give me double my donation, it seems hard to say thats self-sacrificial (or even particularly praiseworthy) whether or not I would, actually, have given the money anyway.
It seems Atheists can claim their moral motivations are _just because_ it is the right thing to do (cf. internalism). So this seems to give Atheism ammo, because doing the right thing ‘just because’ it is the right thing seems a nice thing to have in your moral philosophy – it can be something other than enlightened egoism. And why not say moral commitment is intrinsically motivating? It falls out of lots of non-Theistic views of ethics (more later.)
But even if you need to satisfy a ‘what’s in it for me?’ criterion for it to be rational to do the right thing, then Atheism can happily provide just this. They could follow the Greeks and say that a moral life brings a superior life of its own accord than mere advantage. I think there’s legs to this. Even if I could happily ‘get away’ with living like a sociopath or Kim Jong Il, I wouldn’t want to, and I don’t think many people would. We pity those who are evil, as well as abhor them.
Another reason, ironically, involves the relationships you want to use to try and avoid the self-interest charge (to me, unsuccessfully – you still do benefit from a relationship with God, so the same applies). Perhaps I want a relationship where me and my partner are genuinely willing to sacrifice for each other, and we can communicate and see this doxastic state somewhat accurately. If so, then the fact it might entail self-sacrifice is just a side risk – the relationship as a whole still pays off (I suspect, for many people, these sacrifices don’t matter – they are happy to self-sacrifice for a loved one). The same applies to other doxastic attitudes: I might simply want to be ingenuous rather than cheating, charitable rather than stingy, and kind rather than cruel, even if all of these things bring substantial material costs.
So I don’t think its true (in fact, its dangerous) to run an argument for moral motivation along the lines of self-interest. I don’t think your attempts to other other concerns avoid these criticisms, because they either entail again self interest (relationships are beneficial – I hope!) or they don’t seem to have any punch (so what if you’re designed for it?) But even if you are right that rational actors need some measure of self interest, you can provide plenty of rational motivations of self sacrifice on Atheism. So theism doesn’t have a card to play here – if anything, throwing down risks a trump like I suggested above.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant if Atheism entails naive cultural relativism, naive simple subjectivism, or error theory. But you have to start somewhere – it’s also irrelevant if God does not in fact exist. But I don’t see any reason to think this is going to work either, for three main reasons.
1) So how are objective standards of right and wrong grounded on Theism anyway? (cf. Euthythro or modified concerns). Lots of Theists are ethical naturalists or similar because ‘divine ethics’ lead to nasty difficulties themselves – picking holes in Atheist accounts of morality isn’t much good if your own position is swiss cheese.
2) It’s doubtful that objective standards (moral realism?) are needed for a thick ethical world. Norm-expressivism and other post-emotivist ideas of ethical thought don’t have objective standards of right and wrong, but offer nice accounts to the usual features we want in an ethical world. So if moral facts can’t exist on Atheism, no worries. (Of course, Atheists themselves might have pants meta ethics and be cultural relativists or whatever, but so what? That doesn’t mean Atheism implies it. Lots of Theists are naive divine command theorists – that doesn’t mean Theism doesn’t have a good answer to euthythro.)
3) Why not moral facts on Atheism? I can posit moral properties with the same liberty I can posit mathematical platonism. Modern ethical naturalism doesn’t seem obviously irrational. So why should we reject it out of hand?
Regards,
Gregory
P.S. It definitely isn’t true that naturalism entails hard determinism, unless you think you can carpet bomb almost all of the free will/action theory literature. If anything, Theism introduces PROBLEMS for free will incompatibilism due to foreknowledge issues.
LikeLike
I have to caution you on the length of your comment. Please keep it shorter and provide citations for claims of fact.
“Yet on Christianity these acts are ultimately to my benefit, and this makes it hard to claim they are genuinely self-sacrifical.”
They are self-sacrificial because they require me to give up my autonomy in the here and now. E.g. – I’m chaste and in my thirties. Do you think that’s easy?
“It seems Atheists can claim their moral motivations are _just because_ it is the right thing to do (cf. internalism). ”
It’s an unjustified assertion. So you’re back to irrationality/opinion.
“And why not say moral commitment is intrinsically motivating?”
It’s an unjustified assertion. You’ve got no objective moral standard, no free will, and no reason to be moral if it sets you back.
“[Atheists] could follow the Greeks and say that a moral life brings a superior life of its own accord than mere advantage”.
It’s an unjustified assertion. Assumes objective morality (“superior”), which is not rationally grounded on atheism.
“Even if I could happily ‘get away’ with living like a sociopath or Kim Jong Il, I wouldn’t want to…”
Subjective opinion. Also assumes free will, which is not rationally grounded on atheism.
“We pity those who are evil, as well as abhor them”
On atheism, the word “evil” is meaningless. All moral judgments are subjective opinions on atheism.
“…you can provide plenty of rational motivations of self sacrifice on Atheism.”
Please name the rational justification on atheism for giving up your life to save a stranger’s life.
“So how are objective standards of right and wrong grounded on Theism anyway?”
The moral standard of right and wrong is rooted in God’s own internal, unchanging moral character.
“Norm-expressivism and other post-emotivist ideas of ethical thought… offer nice accounts to the usual features we want in an ethical world.”
Either the moral standard is objective, or subjective. If the former, then God exists. If the latter, it is illusory.
“I can posit moral properties with the same liberty I can posit mathematical platonism.”
You can posit anything you want. It’s an unjustified assertion and provides no rational grounding for morality.
LikeLike
For brevity, I’ll avoid direct quotes and use subheadings.
ABSTRACT – the game being played:
You wants to show that Theism has an explanatory advantage over Atheism with respect to moral motivation: on Theism, there are good reasons to do the right thing, on Atheism, none. My counter-strategy is to try and show that both the reasons you think you need to have moral motivation aren’t reasonable, and, even if they are, that Theism isn’t necessary to supply these.
Materials and methods:
You haven’t actually given any arguments. You’ve simply asserted your conclusions, whilst, unironically, complaining I do the same.
Yet the burden of proof is on you here, not I. I’ve pointed to (for example) moral internalism, compatibilism, etc. and said ‘if these are true, then moral motivation on Atheism is rational.’ Complaining that ‘you’ve just asserted these without justification, it’s just your opinion’ simply misunderstands the philosophical rules of the game.
Internalism and compatibilism are positions widely held in the literature and amongst practising philosophers in these fields – that doesn’t mean they are true, but it means they are at least prima facie reasonable. So I’m not under any real pressure to justify or even argue for them: they seem reasonable positions on their face, and (prior to argument) for all we know are true. You either need to show that my argument from them is wrong (EVEN IF compatibilism or whatever, you’re still in trouble), or present a good argument against compatibilism or whatever being reasonable. Otherwise I’ve surely succeeded: good moral motivation on Atheism exists, contingent on wholly respectable philosophical theses.
RESULTS
To answer your challenge given what I said above.
Why Atheists should want to do the right thing:
1) Moral beliefs are intrinsically motivating (cf. internalism)
2) Living a good life provides higher goods to that person than not doing so (cf. eudaimonia)
3) Doxastic states of genuinely being willing to self-sacrifice are better than merely appearing to do so.
Assertions all, but I only need to suggest candidate reasons-why, as I’m only defending the prospect of rational moral motivation on Atheism. If you want to show me wrong, you have to provide arguments against these, or trust that they are so obviously irrational that no one would take them seriously. Lots of experts don’t think they’re obviously irrational, so I suggest the first strategy.
Aside: You can’t avoid the self-interest reversal by pointing out how hard it is to do what God wants. Being chaste at 30 might well be hard, but (given Christianity) it is still in your interests to do so because sinning is bad (lots of theological liberties taken there, but you get the idea). Likewise, it is hard to get my indolent rear through university, but it is still to my own benefit to do so. It might require _wisdom_ to do this, but not _altruism_. I reiterate my prior complaint that its bad for thick ethics to make all good things valid for self-interest.
[Again for brevity I’m going to omit the moral realism/’objective moral values’ stuff: it confuses the issue. Atheism can fail to explain moral motivation independent from its explanation for morality/moral facts/whatever. If your argument was just ‘moral motivation on Atheism doesn’t work because morals in general on Atheism doesn’t work’, then you should have led with that. I don’t see much in the way of arguments for this either.]
LikeLike
Comparing all morality to an education investment doesn’t make sense because many moral decisions fail to pay off in this life. If you are about to be put on trial for a murder you committed, yet have the option of framing someone else, how does it pay off to do the right thing?
LikeLike
I can only point to what I said above. Perhaps we don’t need a pay off to do the right thing, or, in fact, the pay-off is front loaded in satisfying our desire to be a genuinely good person or whatever.
The murderer example is a bit tricky to parse, given its reliance on prior immorality, but its a not uncommon literary trope for people considering contrition to their benefit (Crime and Punishment, Fastidious Assassins). I see no reason why those considerations can’t be true on Atheism.
LikeLike
Doing something just because it makes you feel good is not rationality. If that were rational then all human decisions would be rational, and there would be no such thing as irrationality (which would obviously defeat the purpose of these words).
Doing something because it leads to a “better life” in the Platonistic sense is just wordplay. It doesn’t actually mean anything. Who cares if it’s “better”? People still wouldn’t want to do it — so its “better” quality would be useless, and obeying this “morality” would be irrational.
LikeLike
You’re right to say that there is no reason to obey the Platonic forms when it goes against your self-interest to do so. It makes no difference when you die what you did, on atheism, so why act in a self-sacrificial way ever?
But I wouldn’t even give him the Platon forms. In a materialist universe, where are these immaterial universals supposed to come from, anyway? What brought them into being, or is this another brute fact assertion? And where is the free will to obey these forms or not? It just doesn’t work, and doesn’t work, and doesn’t work.
LikeLike
Fair enough, Drew. I was reading “self-sacrificial” as more altruistic than the “cost” in a cost/benefit analysis.
This does leave me puzzling as to the difference between Christian theism and naturalism when applying cost/benefit. (Yes, each has a different concept of “benefit”—but the rationale application remains the same.) We all make these decisions.
At times, the Christian weighs the benefit of committing an immoral act, and at that moment, it outweighs the cost. A naturalist may commit an act with no perceived self-interest, even when no one is watching, because the benefit outweighs the cost. Your smart investor may, on occasion, go out to eat because the benefit, at that moment, outweighs the cost.
If you are saying it is rationale for the Christian theist to act morally because Jesus is always watching; does this mean when the Christian acts immorally, they are also acting irrationally? If so, could we say the same about the naturalist?
In other words, is this proving we all act rationally within our worldview, with occasional acts that are irrational? Are we proving humans are…humans?
LikeLike
For the Christian, I do think immorality is pretty much always irrational. We do it because our “flesh” (which includes the brain) is weak.
As stated in Romans 7:15-24:
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?”
But for the naturalist, immorality is often rational — whenever it benefits someone who isn’t being watched by authorities. So we have two worldviews, one of which will promote goodness if followed rationally, and the other that will promote a significant amount of evil if followed rationally.
Of course, it may be that there really is no rationality to the universe, and that morals truly don’t exist and that we SHOULD commit evil. But most people have a very hard time believing that. When you come across a highly evil person, it generally becomes pretty evident that morality actually does exist.
LikeLike
In order for someone to have rational justification for sacrificing their self-interest in this life for some higher moral standard that prescribes, here’s what needs to be rationally grounded:
1) free will
2) objective moral obligations
3) objective moral value of humans
4) error-free judgment
5) life after death
None of these are true on atheism. All are true on Christian theism. Morality makes sense on Christian theism. There is no such thing as morality at all on atheism. No objective way we ought to be, no free will to make moral choices, etc. The whole concept of morality is illusory on atheism.
LikeLike
Wintery Knight,
Questions to clarify your position.
I read this as an argument Christian Theism is more rationale than naturalism when it comes to self-sacrifice. But what I see is that self-sacrifice is rationale in each, when practiced within their own framework. In other words, naturalism’s self-sacrifice practice is rationale (with an occasional bout of irrationality) within naturalistic claims; Christian theism’s self-sacrifice practice is rationale (with an occasional bout of irrationality) with Christian theism’s claims.
Certainly we will disagree as to each claim’s reality–each may argue whether there is or is not an after-life—but that is an argument for a different time.
I was focusing on whether each is internally consistent—rationale—within its own claims.
My questions would be this:
1. Are you saying naturalism self-sacrifice is not rationale:
a) Because it conflicts with what naturalism claims? Or
b) Because it conflicts with what Christian theist claims?
2. Do you agree with Drew, the meaning of self-sacrifice in this blog entry is akin to a “cost” in a cost/benefit analysis?
LikeLike
Great comment.
Question 1:
I am saying 1.a, that self-sacrifice is not rational on naturalism, assuming naturalism is true. If you assume naturalism is true, and then ask whether it is a good idea to give up 25 years of your life, as well as your health and reputation, seeking to end slavery (or abortion). That is NOT RATIONAL on atheism. It makes no sense at all to give up your hedonism to help others when it will not make you happy to do so. You can do it, but it is irrational, assuming that naturalism is true, i.e. – that there is no free will, that humans have no objective moral value, that there are no objective moral duties, that there is no final judgment, and no ongoing love relationship relationship with the author of that moral law. On Christian theism, crusading against Nazism, slavery or abortion is perfectly rational, even if it makes you poor, miserable, unhappy or DEAD, in the here and now, because it is the right thing to do and it matters more whether we do the right thing or not, ultimately. It doesn’t matter that much whether we are happy here and now.
Question 2:
Yes I agree with Drew, but I would add more to it. Let’s call his reason “reason 1”. It’s prudent for me to act in a way that is going to result in the best long-term benefit for me. I personally never think of that reason, but that reason does make it rational to act morally. What I think of is the second and third reasons I gave before. 2) This is the way I was designed to function – I think that it is foolish to act in a way that is contrary to the way that the universe works, e.g. – trying to drink sand as though it were water. There is a real moral law, and awareness of that moral law is real wisdom. And ignoring that moral law is real foolishness. People hurt themselves every day by ignoring the moral law, and I am not interested in doing that because it disrupts the good I could be doing instead. And 3) I refuse to disregard the character of the person who loves me the most in my decision making. I just think that at a basic level it is irrational to hate the people who love you most. You don’t push people away who care about you, even if it means that you will have to adjust your will for them. The real questions to ask are i) is their love for you sincere, and ii) are they in a position to know what is best for you. God fulfills both of those, so I am OK with going along with him in a relationship.
Just on a personal level, consider my chastity. That’s no fun for me right now, but I’ve studied what happens when people have sex outside of marriage and I think it’s destructive. I refuse to pursue actual physical sexual activity with women prior to marriage, even though it seems more pleasurable to do so in the short-term. Why is chastity rational? Consider the 3 reasons for self-sacrifice. I never think of reason 1, except that whatever need it is that I am trying to fill with sex, it will be filled more fully and more appropriately in Heaven. For 2), I find that I can love women better and more self-sacrificially when I don’t pursue sex before marriage with them. I would rather love them in a way that doesn’t separate them from God. For 3), I am just not willing to leave God out of my relationship decisions. When I talk to a woman, God is there. I don’t set him aside to have fun, and then pull him out again when I wreck my life and need comfort. (I never wreck my own life – I value self-control and wisdom). I actually hate Christians for using God only for comfort. It’s better to deal with him when I am strongest – to give him gifts when I am most in control and effective. Does this make any sense? This is a partnership. I want to do my job for God as part of our relationship, and self-sacrifice is how I do that job. I don’t think of myself, I am more interested in the relationship, because that’s the way the world is designed. That’s just the way it is. He’s there and we were made for him.
No offense is intended here. I find you wonderful to talk to, and I wish you were a Christian.
Sorry if this is too long.
LikeLike
I don’t think sexual purity is a good example because the Bible says that sexual immorality actually does harm to the perpetrator himself in the long-run. “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Plenty of non-theists would tend to agree.
The resistance to slavery and other societal evils is a better example.
LikeLike
OK, I understand that. There are secular advantages to chastity. But I am chaste so that I have the capacity to love women in a way that is similar to the way that God loves women – i.e. – I desire what it is best for them, and what is best for them is that they know God and spend eternity with him in Heaven. I can’t look at a woman as merely a source of sexual pleasure, I look at her as another person who has to know God and to help her accordingly. One day, one of these women may respond to that love by trying to to help me with Christian things. Then I would start to think about marriage and sex.
LikeLike
O.K.,
I see two things going on here:
1) We all (theist and non-theist alike) occasionally commit irrational acts. Pointing out how the other side commits an irrational act–while perhaps interesting–does not propel one’s own position into a more rational position. For every example given of a naturalist acting in an apparent manner irrational to naturalism, I can point out a Christian sinning, which is irrational to Christian theism.
We end up trading barbs. Amusing for spectators, to be sure, but doesn’t progress our understanding of each other’s position.
Once we allow for the fact an occasional irrational act will occur, even within our own worldview, pointing out the event in a different worldview cannot be the “magic bullet” to discount the different worldview. Otherwise we would be literally shooting ourselves in the foot! *grin*
2) While the analysis may work if naturalism claimed the sole motivation for actions is self-centered hedonism; it may unravel once we look at all the other motivating factors within humanity. (Even self-centered hedonism can become complicated by other motivations.)
I may not tell the Nazis where the Jews are hidden because I do not want to live with the guilt of causing another person’s death. There are worse things than dying—even to a naturalist. I may not pin a murder on someone else because I fear getting caught. Or may not want to live with the guilt.
(Side note: One problem I’m sure you realize, but for the lurkers…is that these philosophical examples always present cut-and-dried situations whereas reality is not that neat. The classic, “Throw the train switch one way a child dies; throw it another the passengers die. What do you do?” This presents a tidy package where certainty is within the question. You KNOW one or the other event will occur, whereas in life, there is more uncertainty. Is there ever an actual situation where one could pin a murder on another with certainty of getting away with the crime?)
(Side note 2: Is my not wanting to live with guilt rooted in self-centered hedonism? Or is it more altruistic than that? Tough call.)
Since you used yourself as an example, Wintery Knight, allow me the indulgence of using myself as an example for why motivations are difficult to pin down.
I was raised in a strict home. We did not throw our clothes on the floor. We hung up our towels, carried our dishes to the sink and did not put our feet on the furniture. One absolute requirement every single day was that we made our bed. Didn’t matter how late you were, didn’t matter whether you wanted to or not—you made your bed. To not was…unthinkable. Might as well walk outside naked.
To this day, I cannot abide an unmade bad. I’ve….er…even been known to make it with my wife still sleeping in it! While I have lost some OCD regarding the issue, I still much prefer it, and will make it if I see it messed up.
Not too hard to see where this motivation comes from, of course—my upbringing. From a purely selfish hedonistic standpoint, one could argue it is time wasted to make a bed. I know of no moral, either subjective or objective, requiring a made bed. Yet I am more at ease if I make it; so I do it.
Humans are like that. We have varying upbringings, environments, friends, impacts, etc.—all affecting our make up in ways we may not even realize. Naturalism allows for more motivations than just self-centered hedonism. And in those other motivations, we may do actions that appear irrational to others (“Why is he so insistent in making the bed?”) but are rationale to us.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. That was fun to read, and thanks for sharing about the beds. I never make my bed! You get the last word, too.
LikeLike