To ATB: About “How To Judge a Deity” Pt. 1

Well, I’ve done it again.  I was wandering around the old stomping grounds, checking out the old favorites list, and was drawn into a discussion about ethics and God.

A Thinking Bum, or ATB as he has always been known in this space, has suggested that the idea of a God who is supremely moral simply because he says he is (this might be loosely called a "divine command" ethical system) is a notion of morality that is repugnant to him.  I made several comments on a number of tangential issues which filled a huge area at the bottom of one of his entries, and there would appear to be additional discussion required which would best happen outside of notes.  My attempts to capsulize my view of ethics as a Christian theist were largely misunderstood in that space and it’s my hope that writing them here in this space where I can lay them out in more detail will prove helpful in this regard.

Before I begin, a couple of brief points which I wish to make.

First, I would like to note that I’m making a good faith effort here to explain divine command ethics as a Christian theist, knowing full well that if I succeed, it is likely that ATB and the others who’ve commented there (AUUB, An Atheist, Tak and others) will still find the explained ethic I will suggest here abominable and repugnant.   As the discussion continues on ATB’s diary (and in all likelihood in the area that follows this entry) I would like to call on those who would disagree to at least make an attempt of a formulation like the one I’ve done here which would provide a system better than the one which I’m about to suggest, if it is indeed repugnant.  Let me be absolutely frank for a moment:  I’ve met a good many atheists who were content to take their potshots at theism (and especially Christian theism) without ever themselves suggesting a system, quite apart from Christian theism, which is better.  It is one thing to mercilessly critique a standing system.  It is something quite different to say something of substance yourself. 

So, to be certain that my challenge in this regard isn’t missed, it will come before my own take on morality.  Here are the requests I would make of an atheist ethic.

1. I would like to know where this ethic is grounded philosophically that it might fairly be called "objective" and fairly drawn from sources which do not posit the existence of (a) deity(ies). In other words, constructing an alternative ethic ought to come from a tradition which does not posit divinity so that it may be fairly called "atheistic" or "secular."  It won’t do to just steal the parts from theistic systems which are acceptable if the system is still to be called atheistic.  The theistic systems and their morality are part and parcel–interconnected by a system of beliefs about the nature of the world which grounds their moral sense.  To steal the moral conclusions of a theistic morality, deny the presuppositions which make them possible logically and then claim they are your own is no great accomplishment, and in fact violates the entire point of making an atheistic argument.

2. If this ethic is to suggest some kind of "transgression" or things that are ethical violations (or, to put it alternately, "people ought not _______") I would like to hear where this definition of transgression would come from (historically and otherwise), and how it might be suggested that such a definition could be reached objectively without invoking personal preference or a deity. (so that it may be fairly called atheistic and objective). 

3. If a word involving comparison to a standard is invoked ("it is BETTER to do X than Y," or "this is the HIGHEST moral imperative."), I would like to know how the word is being used and where the standard being invoked comes from, again so that it is clearly distinct from personal preference.  In other words, on what basis are people to make judgments based on what is preferable or better or excellent or moral?  Where does the standard find it’s root?

Second, in an effort to be true to my own principles, I will suggest that there are many types of ethical systems.  There are a variety of words often used in these types of debates.  As a short list of terms which might prove helpful to some, which are better explained by textbooks and experts, I submit the following:  ethical egoism, deontology, utilitarianism, emotivism, relativism, logical positivism, and virtue ethics.  In addition many philosophers and writers have made significant contributions to our understanding of ethics.  A list of names might include:  Plato, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, William Graham Sumner, John Ladd, Joseph Fletcher, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and others.

This entry has gotten long.  I’ll continue on the next one, to be sure that it saves correctly.  (Many of my earlier entries in this regard on this site were lost in cyberspace when I typed too long.)