In a God-free universe morality refers to organisms’ interpretation of
bio-sensory input or bio-chemical reactions
I reference materialist / atheist / naturalist to merely list three terms which are generally understood to mean the same thing within certain contexts namely; a God-free universe.
So that I do not have to continuously type materialist / atheist / naturalist I will hereinafter refer to this as MAN (sorry ladies).
In a MAN world what is morality? Here I will forego the various directions into which an answer to such a question can go, such as a distinction between ethics and morals, and simply focus on that which follows.
Au fond, at the very bottom, of a MAN world morality refers to organism’s interpretation of bio-sensory input or bio-chemical reactions (hereinafter BSI/BCR). An organism experiences certain BSI/BCR and interprets them: this one is pleasant, this one is unpleasant, etc.
Some organisms attempt to get other organisms to agree that if they all find some sorts of BSI/BCR unpleasant then they should not cause each other to experience these BSI/BCRs.
Now, some BSI/BCR are eligible for further interpretation. For example, if I say that an organism caused me to experience an unpleasant BSI/BCR you may say that they ought not do that. But if I said that it was my personal trainer who pushed me to lift heavier weights you may say that, that unpleasant BSI/BCR is to be interpreted as beneficial even if unpleasant.
With that qualifier in mind (and foregoing a discussion of sadism) it is reasonable to state that in general we organisms should not cause each other to experience unpleasant BSI/BCR.
Now, the key question is: what is it about an organism’s interpretation of BSI/BCR that amounts to morality?
Well, it is our general agreement as to what BSI/BCR are pleasant and which are not.
Good, but what about those who disagree, do not care or enjoy causing unpleasant BSI/BCR (masochists, for example; and do not be clever enough to recommend that they get together with the sadists as I am not referring to S&M games but to malicious masochism).
Well, if enough organisms have agreed and can establish some sort of governance they can somehow recompense the unpleasant BSI/BCR doers; re-educate, incarcerate, execute, etc.
Another issue to ponder at this point is what would happen if one large group of organisms are unpleasant BSI/BCR doers, such as Nazis, and another disagrees, such as the Allied Forces? Well, then most organisms will agree that a certain amount of unpleasant BSI/BCR doing is to be tolerated; such as when fighting violent battles for freedom. That the strongest, most fit, wins is another aspect of this issue in which case morality is simply a convention and based on numbers and might (when I debated an atheist on the issue of morality, he argued both that morality is based on majority opinion and that it is also not based on majority opinion ).
Moreover, this assumes that the unpleasant BSI/BCR doers are caught (and that they do not somehow buy their way out or the recompense, etc.). If they are not caught then they simply get away with it. Think of the organism named Adolf Hitler; he enjoyed his power, had thousands of adoring adherents, did as he pleased and when he decided that it was all over he ended his life and then—then nothing but a sort of perfect peace of annihilation.
The MAN view: 1) Does nothing ultimate / transcendent about unpleasant BSI/BCR. Except, that is, to complain about them. 2) Makes unpleasant BSI/BCR even worse by guaranteeing that they have no higher / ultimate / transcendent meaning. Except, that is, that the unpleasant BSI/BCR doers get to enjoy themselves which means that on the MAN view unpleasant BSI/BCR are for the benefit of the unpleasant BSI/BCR doers.
3) Can only provide very, very limited justice for the unpleasant BSI/BCR doers and since it offers no ultimate / transcendent justice it is, itself, an unjust and therefore immoral view.
——————————-
As I was writing this essay I ran across an interesting video.
This video begins with an exercise in presuppositional apologetics and then at t=7:25 touches upon appealing to the just because of the gaps with regards to morality—it’s not ok because it’s not ok to me…the majority is with me and we can enforce it…, etc.
The atheist in the video also falls into various fallacies such as claiming that Christians believe that everything in the Bible is true. Well, when someone lies and the Bible records it; it is true that they lied but the lie is not true (see here for an elucidation of truth). When the false theologies of the gods are described the description is true but the theologies are not true, etc.
Fascinatingly, the atheist argues (just as do Dan Brown and John Loftus) that history is essentially unreliable as it is written by the winner. Yet, as per the Brown-Loftus School of History and Self-Serving Arguments: when it comes to besmirching Christianity suddenly history is reliable: they appeal to history when they want to point to Christian evils.
This atheist perpetuates the myth that Galileo was persecuted by the church (see “Galileo – A Story of a Hero of Science”) and so suddenly history is reliable—when it is convenient to his point.
He later states that some history is accurate so, there you have it: his is accurate, yours is not.
He asks whether the Earth is the center of the universe in the context of discussing the contents of the Bible: as if the Bible states any such thing—it does not.
“You cannot take everything in the Bible and apply it to your life.” Indeed, and no one is supposed to. For example, even considering the laws pertaining to the Jews living in God’s theocratic kingdom: no Jew ever had to keep 613 commandments as some are just for males, some just for females, some just for kings, some just for priests, etc., etc., etc.