This essay represents a consideration of Erik J. Wielenberg’s “In Defense Of Non-Natural, Non-Theistic Moral Realism,” Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 26 No. 1 January 2009, all rights reserved.
His view is that “objective morality is somehow built into reality.” In other words, he is arguing from a position of adherence to the positive sect of atheism which positively affirms God’s non-existence—as he states it, “I believe, there is no God.”
In following segments I will consider how he elucidates his view but in short; his atheist meta-ethic / moral realism asserts that “evolutionary processes have endowed us with certain unalienable rights and duties.” This is tantamount to Dan Barker’s statement, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good.” You can see why dissecting his claims will take time as just how a blind, purposeless, survival of the fittest, natural selection (meaning you either live or die) driven process can endow us not only with rights but also duties and that these are unalienable is certainly mysterious (and remains so even after his failed elucidation).
His assertion is that ethics just is, they just are, they are brute facts. He seems to be, if I may, be suffering from brute fact envy as he appears to reason that if theists can postulate God as a brute fact, he too wants to postulate brute facts as well and since atheism cannot account for anything but man-made—tentative, relative—morals then he want to assert his particular concept of ethics as an it just is based brute fact.
Interestingly, one point emphasized by Erik J. Wielenberg—one of his meta-ethical / moral realism assertions, one item on his “ethical shopping list”—is, “it is just to give people what they deserve.”
Does his system provided this? Only in a very, very limited way. For example; if enough people agree with Erik Wielenberg then they could form a government, influence the government under which they live, etc. and could establish a judicial system that would enforce their view of meta-ethics / moral realism. Yet, what happens with the person who is not witnessed breaking the meta-ethics / moral realism? Or the one who bribes themselves out of being held accountable?
Or think about Adolf Hitler: he set up his own moral system and it was this system to which appeal was made by the Nazi’s who were tried at Nuremburg. They argued that they could not be held accountable for their crimes against humanity because they were soldiers, or otherwise government officials, who were simply following orders, following the law of their land, following Nazi morals.
Now, Adolf Hitler did whatever he wanted, became a beloved celebrity having thousands of adoring followers and in the end—and the key is when he decided it was the end—he took his own life and then…and then nothing.
On the atheistic meta-ethical / moral realism view it is absolutely guaranteed that Hitler got away with it. For Hitler there is no justice of any sort, no giving him what he deserves, but only the sort of perfect peace of annihilation.
To reiterate: Wielenberg asserts an ethical brute fact that “it is just to give people what they deserve.” Yet, it is at this very point that his meta-ethical / moral realism fails as it guarantees that there is no ultimate, absolute, transcendent justice.
Therefore, since atheist meta-ethical / moral realism (Erik J. Wielenberg’s or anyone’s) does not provide this sort of all encompassing justice: it is unjust and thus, not ethical or moral.
Now, let us generically consider three concepts—justice, mercy and grace—via an illustration.
You are speeding and get pulled over by a police officer.
Justice: you deserve a ticket, she writes you a ticket, you are accountable to pay the ticket and so you either pay it or suffer further consequences.
Mercy: you deserve a ticket but the officer lets you off thus, justice is not served as you simply got away with it.
Grace: you deserve a ticket, she writes you a ticket, you are accountable to pay the ticket but she tells you that while you are guilty, deserve a ticket and get a ticket; she will pay it for you. Thus, justice is served via an expression of love.
This is that which meta-ethical / moral realism simply cannot fathom. If you view my debate with my atheist friend Michael of the issue of morality you will note that it is asked of us both what would motivate a person to sacrifice their lives for others.
I believe that the question, his answer and my answer cut to the very heart of any and every debate about morality between atheists and Christians as what he states is unintelligible (yet, consistent with his worldview) and what I say was obviously unfathomable to him (just look at his reaction when I answer).