In 2009 philosopher Erik Wielenberg published “In Defense of Non-Natural, Non-Theistic Moral Realism” in the journal Faith and Philosophy. The abstract claims:

Many believe that objective morality requires a theistic foundation. I maintain that there are sui generis objective ethical facts that do not reduce to natural or supernatural facts. On my view, objective morality does not require an external foundation of any kind. After explaining my view, I defend it against a variety of objections posed by William Wainwright, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland.

But after reading his article, I can only conclude that Wielenberg does not know what the word “foundation” means as used by any of these authors when they argue for a “theistic foundation” of objective morality. Because nowhere in his article does he ever present what they mean by a foundation at all. Not even a bad one. Just none at all. It literally never comes up. And this is a problem I am finding with atheists in general; especially everyday atheists, who can perhaps be excused by not being all that well educated in philosophy, but I find even professional philosophers doing this, and they should know better by now. Thus requiring me to explain this point—yet again (I’ve gone over this many times before, e.g. from Epilogue to the Sam Harris Moral Facts Contest to Shermer vs. Pigliucci on Moral Science); but this time I will use Wielenberg’s paper as a foil for illustrating where atheists are going wrong and talking right past theists, and with catastrophic effects vis-a-vis moving anyone away from superstitions about gods and towards a reality-based worldview (an example of that point, Justin Brierley’s detailed account, I will write on in a coming month).

The Irrelevance of Wielenberg’s Actual Thesis

Ignoring the abstract, if an alien from Planet X read Wielenberg’s paper and had to report what it was about, I think they’d have to say something like: “Certain superstitious Earthlings believe meeting moral obligations cannot be rationally justified without the existence of some sort of conveniently-propertied ghost, and this Earthling shows that moral obligations have intelligible meanings without a conveniently-propertied ghost, which no one disputes and in no way replies to the superstitious Earthlings. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the point of this report.”

For example, Wielenberg quotes Craig and Moreland as saying “What does it mean to say, for example, that the moral value justice just exists? … It is clear what is meant when it is said that a person is just; but it is bewildering when it is said that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists” (p. 33). To this Wielenberg responds, “With respect to justice, my view is that there are various obtaining states of affairs concern­ing justice, and that when individual people have the property of being just, it is (in part) in virtue of the obtaining of some of these states of affairs” (p. 34). But that’s not what Craig and Moreland are asking.

I am certain they’d both agree that no God is required for me to say, and be stating an objective fact even, that my girlfriend’s bedroom’s decoration is “Star-Wars-y,” in that it resembles the canonical aesthetic of the Star Wars franchise. Because that isn’t saying anything about how people should or ought to “Star-Wars-ify” their bedrooms. It’s just a neutral statement of fact that the decor meets certain defining criteria. Everyone agrees justice exists in that sense, the only sense Wielenberg ever articulates. What Moreland and Craig are asking is how it can be the case that justice is moral, as in is “good,” and “good” not trivially, but in a way that motivates our caring about it, and indeed not just caring about it, but wanting our actions to conform to it—and indeed, wanting that more than we want anything else, otherwise we’d just laugh “justice” off as a curious aesthetic and continue preferring other styles of being. Wielenberg never answers this question. It does not even appear anywhere in his article as if anyone has ever asked this question, least of all the superstitious Earthlings he thinks he is answering but isn’t. Yet that is most definitely exactly what they are asking. So his paper is a non-response to their point.

Almost the only useful thing Wielenberg does say is that, if there is no God, then “it is in some sense an accident that we have the moral properties that we do,” but “that they are accidental in origin does not make these moral properties unreal or unimportant.” That is entirely true, and theists do need to hear it. It would not matter why you ought to behave a certain way if it is nevertheless true that you ought to behave that way—because it’s still the case that you ought to behave that way; so “accidental” moral facts would not be any less obligating. Yet even here Wielenberg fails to take the actual step the theists are looking for: going from the vacuous and unmotivating observation that moral standards “exist” (they are “real”) and somehow “important” (whatever that means), to actually giving an actual reason anyone should actually adhere to those standards in their behavioral choices. That is what the theists mean by the grounding of morality, by a “ground for morality,” by a “foundation” of moral obligation, and all the various other turns of phrase they like.

What these theists mean is a reason to be moral. Not the mere existence of morality as a concept. Moreover, they do not mean just “any” reason to be moral, like someone presenting a list of reasons to Star-Wars-ify their bedroom; reasons that might be entirely rational (they are not random gibberish, but are actual reasons people do or could actually have to do it) and even mildly enticing (like, enough that you even do think about it for a minute or two), but ultimately insufficient to motivate us to actually do it (because, say, we like a 60s Mod look more, or can’t be bothered because a redec would be more work than we think it’s worth). Theists mean by a “moral ground” a fully motivating reason to actually be moral—and one that would be true for everyone, and not just random people who perchance like the aesthetic they are marketing.

Wielenberg never provides any such ground for morality. He thus never responds to the theists he claims to be answering. When it comes time in his article to even get anywhere near doing that, all he says is, “Necessarily, any being that can reason, suffer, experience happiness, tell the difference between right and wrong, choose between right and wrong, and set goals for itself” thereby simply “has certain rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and cer­tain obligations,” like for example “the duty to refrain from rape (in typical circumstances),” an example he mentions only because they brought it up. That’s a non answer. Nowhere does he connect “having” rights in this sense, with any reason anyone should care about that. For example, I too could elaborately argue that “Necessarily, any being that can reason and set goals for itself” and so on thereby simply “has the property of enjoying Star Wars.” That would be merely an unjustified assertion (it is, after all, false; we can empirically adduce ample evidence of people who don’t enjoy Star Wars). Which is also all Wielenberg gives us (we can empirically adduce ample evidence of people who don’t care about the mere “existence” of human rights). But it’s also not relevant even were it a justified true belief. That everyone enjoyed Star Wars wouldn’t be sufficient to motivate everyone to redec their bedrooms accordingly. I enjoy Star Wars. And I like my bedroom the way it is.

So it’s not simply enough to somehow show that “rights” are just a thing that follows from being people. “Violence” is also just a thing that follows from being people. So is selfishness, dishonesty, lust, gender, singing badly in the shower, garden tending, a frequent affectation for cheese. That tells us nothing about how we should behave in respect to these things. Is violence just like an affectation for cheese? Is selfishness good because it’s inherent to being a singular mind in need of self-preservation? Do gender norms follow necessarily from anything, and if so, why care? Tattoos and eyeglasses defy what nature bestowed on us; that does not make them immoral. We defy our evolved and biological nature all the time. And indeed, ample rational reasons can be given that we even ought to. But you won’t find any in Wielenberg’s paper. How do we get to the ought in morality? That’s what we’re supposed to be on about here.

To be clear, I am not here saying Wielenberg thinks “biology dictates morality.” I am only using biology as an example of “a” way rights can be properties of people in Wielenberg’s sense. But it does not matter what that way is, whether structural (all social systems of conscious beings, whatever their biology, will possess the configurable property of rights), or magical (a mystical realm of Platonic Ideals just mindlessly imbues people with the configurable property of rights), or anything else whatever (up to and including “God did it,” which you might start to realize now is a bigger problem for theists than even Wielenberg realizes). Regardless of how rights are properties of people, we need more than just some way “human rights” are an inevitable configurable property of people. We need grounds to give a shit that it is. Otherwise, we have no grounds to give a shit that it is. And that’s what perplexes Moreland and Craig. That’s what they are asking the likes of Wielenberg to produce.

And that’s why that has been what I produce: an actual grounding of morality in natural facts (under peer review in The End of Christianity; extensively in response to Moreland in Sense and Goodness without God; and in numerous articles on my blog).

The Conditional Reductio

There is one maneuver in Wielenberg’s paper that might be conceptually useful, even though it trades on a falsehood, and doesn’t get us to what either his paper’s title or abstract promise: he makes a conditional argument of roughly the form, “If we accept theistic defenses of God as a brute fact, then we must accept my defense of moral facts as brute facts.” Wielenberg’s argument is then a fortiori: if God can be a brute fact, then it is even more likely moral facts can be brute facts, as they are far simpler in component structure (indeed, God becomes a useless epicycle: why do we need two brute facts, morality and a divine personality? If all we need is the one brute fact, what evidence remains that we have the other?). I don’t think either is likely to be a brute fact (their complexity is too great, thus requiring too improbable an existential coincidence to count on); and proposing they “are” brute facts still requires us to produce evidence that they even exist in the first place (and Wielenberg doesn’t really do that here, not in what I am pointing out is the required sense).

But it is true that if it is credible to accept God (the most amazingly improbable and outrageously convenient assembly of attributes) is a brute fact, then you cannot rationally say that it is not credible to accept moral facts (a far less complex and convenient set of things) as brute facts. The theist is stuck in a conundrum there, and Wielenberg does close this trap well, showing that theists really are compelled to accept God is a brute fact (since they have failed in practice to prove he is a logically necessary fact, despite constantly insisting they haven’t); and therefore, they cannot maintain God exists and reject Wielenberg’s stance on morality. Okay. But that doesn’t get us anywhere near proving Wielenberg’s grounding of morality actually exists. That it “could” is not enough. And in any event, he never gets around to articulating what his ground of morality even is, beyond being “possibly” a brute fact. Because he never links his defense of the idea of morality to a defense of any sufficient motivation to care about it.

So this is true:

The conclusion of all of this is as follows. Let us suppose that the two options on the table are the following: (i) objective ethics has as its ulti­mate foundation some set of objective ethical facts, and (ii) objective ethics has as its ultimate foundation a necessarily existing perfect person. Both approaches ultimately ground objective morality on substantive, neces­sary brute facts. … There may be a good reason to prefer one of these views over the other, but, as far as I can see, such a reason is not to be found [in anything theists argue] …

Wielenberg 2009, p. 32.

But all this gets us is a mere possibility of some grounding of moral facts that is a brute fact. It gets us nowhere to “the grounding of moral facts is a brute fact,” or even to what “the grounding of moral facts” actually is, or even that there is one. “Could be” does not get us “is.” Possibly does not mean probably. This is the ever-frustrating fallacy of possibiliter ergo probabiliter that so typifies Christian apologetics. Atheists shouldn’t be using it too.

Walking Through the Problem

To be fair Wielenberg is in this report more concerned to refute the Moral Argument for God than actually grounding moral facts, but it is impossible to do the one without the other, unless your position is that there is no grounds for morality. So I think one should reorient priorities here. Wielenberg opened his paper with the declaration that “the moral argument appears to be among the most popular and psychologically effective,” yet the 2020 PhilPapers Survey found the opposite: almost no philosopher (Christians included!) rates it as the best argument for God (fewer than 10% of respondents, by any metric, even included it among the best). And you might want to ask why that is. I think because it confuses desire for fact, and thus is epistemically fallacious as an argument for gods; that we want there to be moral facts cannot be an argument that there are any, and like gods, there might just not be any. And philosophers are rating the logical soundness of arguments for God, not the psychological effectiveness of illogical arguments.

But that leaves those of us who do think morality has a ground, a foundation, in the actually relevant sense: an actual justification for being moral. I’ve long struggled to understand what Wielenberg thinks that is. I haven’t found it in any of his articles or books; and this, by its title, I thought surely should. Which is strange, as he is confident he has one, and that it requires no deity (as I’m sure no genuine moral facts do). So I’d really like to know what it is, and thereby whether it corroborates or challenges what I have so far found it to be, a fundamental requirement of scientific progress on any problem. To get at what I mean by this requires going through some stages of thinking in Wielenberg’s article which may at first seem a digression, but trust me, they do connect back the central point.

“Consider,” Wielenberg proposes, “the state of affairs in which it is morally wrong to torture the innocent just for fun and the state of affairs in which pain is intrinsically bad (that is, bad in its own nature, or in and of itself).” He maintains that “these states of affairs obtain not just in the actual world but in all meta­physically possible worlds” (p. 26). This is actually false as stated. It is false in two different but connected respects: first, semantically; second, physically.

Semantically, I have visited many a dungeon in which it was perfectly moral “to torture the innocent just for fun.” Now, what I mean by this is, in some respect, a triviality; I think Wielenberg could fix this problem with suitable rewording, such as he gets to later when he starts incorporating “consent” as a key component of moral propositions. In those dungeons (and many a private bedroom), it is only moral “to torture the innocent just for fun” if they informedly and competently consent to it. So one might say Wielenberg is hanging a lot on key words like “just” for fun or “innocent.” But these are distinctions that should not be left unstated. They matter. Pain is simply not intrinsically bad. It is only contextually bad. And that begs explanation. Why does context matter? Which means, not merely why might we care about context, but why should we care about context? Think about it. Put a pin in that.

One might ask whether it is moral for a sociopath who does not at all care about others “to torture the innocent just for fun” so long as they are always appropriately consenting adults. Yes, that sounds like some sort of moral Gettier Problem. But think about it. Do we mean to classify mere mental stances as moral or immoral? Or is that sociopath still “behaving morally”? The fact that you are asking that question would mean the question itself has quite a lot to do with what you care about. What is more important, that a sociopath think correctly, or that they always behave in ways you will not find alarming and a social problem to deal with? It’s difficult to intuitively answer that question because it is nigh impossible to decouple “thinking correctly” from “always behaving in correct ways.” Because the very reason you might give to be concerned about “thinking incorrectly” is simply that an incorrect mindset risks causing incorrect behavior; and we can’t really conceive of an incorrect mindset perfectly reliably producing nothing but correct behavior. That would require such an extraordinary set of coincidences as to not even contemplate as a possibility worth considering. Bad minds simply are dangerous because they cause bad behavior. That’s really the only rational reason to care about them. But that would leave bad behavior as the actual thing we have any ground to care about. And even when they are logically inseparable (e.g. you will adjudge pretending to love you as bad, therefore the goods of love can only exist for you with a good mindset in the one who loves you; they are effectively synonymous), we’re still talking about which natural facts we care about.

Which gets us to the physical sense in which Wielenberg’s statement is false. Imagine a world (and indeed, someday someone may even be able to produce and live in it, whether that’s a good idea or not) where “torturing the innocent just for fun” cures all diseases and disorders (mental and physical), up to and including restoring youth and fitness to the elderly, and where nothing else effects any such cure, and where anyone who isn’t ever tortured, rapidly ages and accumulates diseases and disorders endlessly until they become a gibbering, incompetent lunatic—who can be at once fully restored if someone tortures them just for fun. It’s hard to argue that in that universe it is “morally wrong to torture the innocent just for fun.” In that universe, to the contrary, it is arguably morally right to do so. All because we simply changed the physical facts. Which seems to indicate that moral facts are grounded in natural facts.

Okay. How might we push back on that? You could say that, well, the competent should still have to consent. But that won’t apply to those who have become so ailed they lack competence to consent. At that point, is it really more moral to let them die in gibbering madness than to torture them for fun and thereby cure them? We do, after all, deem it moral to perform painful and invasive procedures on children and the insane, when there is sufficient need to, such as to preserve their own life or limb. And in this bizarre alternative world, that’s basically what “torturing the innocent just for fun” simply does. So it seems evident that changing the natural facts, changes the moral facts. Or you might try to argue the world proposed is impossible, but I doubt it (once we have virtual worlds to play in, the “impossible” will have a lot less meaning), and in any case, all you are then arguing is still that the moral fact you insist upon derives from some physical fact (like, the intentions of the “torturer,” or the physical impossibility of “selfish intentions” ever being consistently aligned with “unselfish outcomes”). You thus have just grounded moral facts in natural facts again. You can’t escape this. No matter how you try to maneuver, all you end up doing is defending the same conclusion: moral facts are grounded in physical, hence natural facts.

Now, this hasn’t gotten us to a conclusion yet. Because we haven’t gotten to why we should care about these outcomes. And morality must ultimately be grounded in some such thing; or else it has no ground at all, as in, we will have no grounds to obey it. All I am showing so far is that it looks like moral facts are grounded in physical facts. So if moral motivation is also grounded (the thing Moreland and Craig are worried about), then we have good reason to suspect that that motivation will be found somewhere in the natural facts of ourselves and our world as well. Because everything else appears to be (and indeed, I mean everything else). So we should look there first, before trying to find some other presumed source (as Wielenberg does, in some kind of vague conceptology; and Moreland and Craig do, in God). Okay. Now put a pin in that.

The Problem in a Nutshell

Wielenberg says “my view does violate the principles that (i) all values are properties of persons and (ii) all values have external foundations” but “I suggest that the lesson to be drawn from this is that (i) and (ii) are false; certainly Craig and Moreland provide no arguments for such principles.” But this is only true if we categorize, for example, “justice” and “injustice” (or other “system describers”; for example, “democracy” vs. “monarchy”) as mere descriptors for possible social-causal systems. As such, “justice” (like “injustice,” “democracy,” “monarchy”) exists as a universal potential: anywhere a system is organized a certain way, it will be correctly described by that label. Such a fact requires neither (i) nor (ii) because it is entirely conditional. “If it is possible for a system to be organized at location A so as to manifest the properties defined by justice, then justice as a thing always and necessarily potentially exists at A.” This is true even if no A exists. But that does not address the actual question, which is whether justice is good, which would normally mean “preferable.” So we aren’t actually defending moral facts here. Just amoral possibilities. There is no reason to prefer a system organized as “justice” over a system organized as “injustice.” And thus no reason to call the one moral and the other not.

I think the lesson to be drawn from this is that (i) and (ii) are both true, but it is by finding how they can both be true, which still aligns with the actual empirical facts of our actual existence, that we will discover the actual grounding of moral facts. And it’s the theists who are screwed here. Because they actually never do what they are asking Wielenberg to do either. If I told you that all moral facts are grounded in the tomato on my desk, such that they can only be true—in the only relevant sense, that you really should obey them over all other alternative directives—as long as that tomato exists, have I actually grounded moral facts in anything? Switch out “your god” for “my tomato” and you have gained nothing here. God actually doesn’t ground anything even if he exists. You still have to care what God thinks (or what he is, or whatever thing theists want to ground moral facts in). If you don’t, then how does what he thinks (or is, or whatever) ground anything? Crickets.

This becomes self-evident when you switch my tomato out for a god who is a cruel, dishonest, champion of injustice (basically, Yahweh). Does that then mean cruelty and dishonesty and injustice will become moral? There is a reason the Euthyphro dilemma still stings. It is not because God can’t be perfectly good and his commands the one true morality. Rather, it is because merely being the character or commands of God is not enough to establish that it is good. If a theist says, “But God is all wise, and you should trust a wise person will know what’s right,” all they are doing is admitting the point: that there is some fact of the matter we ourselves could get to merely by being wise. We don’t need God for that, even if it would be useful to have one around. Thus you can’t get the Moral Argument for God with this line. Nor does this ground morality in God. That God can figure out what’s moral, does not entail what’s moral needs a God around to be so. So it isn’t just Wielenberg who is failing to ground morality, by not addressing what “grounding morality” really means (a motive to be moral; not the stale fact of morality merely existing). These theists aren’t really addressing it, either.

It is at this point a desperate theist might panic and show his hand and start going on about Heaven and Hell. But that is to ground morality not only back in physical facts (you are now talking about moral facts following merely from a particular physical arrangement of the world; change that physical arrangement, and you change the moral facts again), but facts for which there is zero empirical evidence. We have no data on what behaviors trap one in Hell, or get you into Heaven, or even that any do; mere assertions and thumping of Bibles does not data make. That’s even worse than the position Wielenberg is in. He can at least adduce empirical reasons why you might prefer undertaking certain behaviors over others. The theist, has jack all.

I show this in multiple respects in my paper on moral theory in The End of Christianity. Wielenberg shows it in additional ways (e.g. p. 39). For example, he documents William Lane Craig violating his own demand for a reason to be moral by simply declaring as a brute fact that God is worthy of worship (and presumably emulation or obedience), rather than justifying the claim that he is. In other words, why should we agree God is worthy of anything? That requires a ground. Hence, despite endless handwaving, theists never actually ground any morality in any god. Not even conceptually, much less empirically. They cannot provide any grounds for concluding just any nature of God will be moral, will be preferable, will be anything we’d want to admire or emulate. They always have to provide extra additional reasons why only one particular nature, should God possess it, would so qualify. Which means there must be some other grounds than God—since merely “being God” doesn’t cut it. And if that’s the case, we don’t need there to be a God for moral facts to be grounded. Whatever would ground our judgment that God was good, would ground our judgment that anyone was good. And isn’t that what we mean by morality?

In the end, we need to interrogate why theists think we should deem any character good and worth emulating. They cannot say “because he’s God” because God could be horrid. Nor can they say “God can’t be horrid,” not merely because they can’t produce any evidence that’s the case (so there is no reason to believe it), but also because it doesn’t answer the question. “God can’t be any other way” still doesn’t get us to “we should therefore want to emulate God.” You have to build out something more, to explain why “the only possible way God could be, just happens to be by coincidence the way we should want to be too.” And whatever you attempt in order to explain that, always it ends up being something that can be true or exist without a god. Trust me. Try as you might, you will never get anywhere else but there. Wielenberg notices this (e.g. p. 38), but takes the wrong lesson from it, which is, in effect, “if they can catastrophically fail at this, then so can I!” That’s regress, not progress.

The Only Way Morality Can Actually Be Grounded

“What may be true,” Wielenberg says, “is that nihilism is false only if there are basic ethical facts” (p. 39). But that’s probably false. Since a god actually can’t ground moral facts (without appeal to the natural facts of what physically is the case and what things people actually already care about), neither can any “basic moral facts” of Wielenberg’s construction. There is simply no reason to care about them—without appeal to the natural facts of (a) what physically is the case and (b) what things people actually already care about. So always, every single time, that’s where things always land. That’s the only foundation there can ever be or will ever be for being a moral person—and hence, in turn, for ascertaining what a moral person is.

In my work I have used this revelation to arrive at a fairly credible grounding of moral facts in natural facts: reliable human satisfaction management requires empathy and honesty; and all that these theists are doing is projecting their own fears and self-judgments onto God, when really, they would simply hate themselves if they became the very sort of people they hate—or else will delude themselves into false beliefs to hide from their own otherwise inevitable self-loathing; but then the bulk of their moral beliefs would be false. You can only have true moral beliefs if they follow from true factual beliefs. So, telling yourself you are a nice person when you are not, can never truthfully justify your hurtful behavior. Whereas admitting you are not a nice person will conflict with the fact that you don’t like people who aren’t nice—and thus, necessarily, you must admit you do not like who you are. Which then becomes a sufficient reason to stop being what you hate and become something else. These are logically necessary facts of conscious existence. They can’t be avoided in any possible universe.

Which entails that what may be true is, rather, that nihilism is false if ethical facts could only ever derive from natural facts. That’s one more reason, in addition to the two I had you pin above, that we should look around to see if there are any natural facts that have that consequence. And there are. And an additional proof of this is that even theists operate as if this is the case. When they try to give reasons why abortion or homosexuality are wrong, they always list physical facts, things that go poorly in result; and always they appeal to the emotional hostility to those outcomes in the audience. All of these things are natural facts. In these cases, usually false facts; fetuses don’t have minds whereas the women forced to carry them do, and homosexuality is not dysfunctional when not oppressed. Correct these false beliefs back into alignment with reality, and the natural facts the theists claimed supported their position on abortion and homosexuality dissolve; and with those false facts goes their false morality.

Thus, even on theism, morality is grounded in natural facts. And this is true even from the other side of the equation: what people can be rationally and honestly convinced to care about. If people didn’t have any reason to care about what a God supposedly thinks about abortion or homosexuality, then in no way could God’s opinions ground anything regarding that. Because his opinions would then be incapable of justifying, and thus “grounding,” anyone’s behavior or compliance. If no one cares, if God’s opinions mean nothing to them, and there is literally no way by which to explain to them why they should, then there is no true sense in which they “ought” to comply with those opinions. Calling God’s opinions “moral” would then be tautologically arbitrary and meaningless. So people have to already have some values or desires that would motivate their caring before you could ever truthfully argue that they should care. And what people happen to value and desire most, such as would override anything else they may be desiring and preferring already instead, is simply a natural fact about people. And that would be so even if they were engineered by God.

The theist might want at this point to acquiesce, admit moral facts are grounded in natural facts, and complain instead that, well, but for God engineering us in a way we can actually find satisfying if we adhere to His design, but for God arranging the natural facts in a way that’s actually good for us, we’d have come out wrong and would be living self-defeating and dissatisfying, maybe even malicious, dishonest, and horrid lives. But that’s now an empirical claim that can be tested. It tests false. And significantly, it will always test false. Because that is the very nature of personal consciousness: anything with that property is capable of working out what behaviors are self-defeating and dissatisfying and work out what changes in behavior would correct that, particularly in a social system, where cooperative behavior is always the most efficient means to any end (hence The Real Basis of a Moral World and The Objective Value Cascade).

And necessarily, it is always impossible for an advanced civilization to arise—with people even capable of contemplating moral philosophy in the first place—from a people all of whose satisfaction derives from being malicious, dishonest, and horrid. Evolution will wipe them out before ever getting to that state; or else maintain them in the savage state of all other animals. People can only ever get to the point of contemplating moral theory if the bulk of their ancestors were not engineered to derive satisfaction from being malicious, dishonest, and horrid. Nor will they continue to be the sort of people that can care about moral theory if they should start deriving satisfaction from being malicious, dishonest, and horrid, as their descent into extinction or mindless savagery would then be inevitable.

And this tests out empirically: the deeply dissatisfying, hollow and loveless, rage- and disappointment-filled, risk-hosed lives of sociopaths are well-documented; their environments by their own actions become corrupt and hostile and dysfunctional, and thus self-defeating; and even the rare example of one so lucky as to somehow avoid any significant proportion of all of this only proves the rule: only a completely irrational fool banks their entire life satisfaction on being extremely improbably lucky. The choice of being awful has a bad self-outcome so frequently, and so much more frequently than the choice of being benevolent, that only a really bad gambler would bet on being malevolent—and hence, only really bad gamblers do that. The rest of us bet on benevolence. Down that path we find love, resources, friends, and life- and self-satisfaction without delusion, more frequently than down any other path open to us. Rationality therefore compels no other choice.

The theist (and maybe Wielenberg too) is worried that if morality simply derives from what we want, then it is capricious and arbitrary, just a matter of shifting opinion. But that’s a false fear. It’s also moot. Because there has never been any argument for being moral that didn’t appeal to what people wanted. So you had better get with the program and admit we’re already where I am, and have been there for thousands of years. You have to want to be moral (or else want something that entails you will want to be moral once you realize this) for it ever to be true that you ought to be moral. Full stop. They also worry, of course, that the correlation between benevolence and good outcomes and malevolence and bad outcomes, though reliable enough to make rationally clear which is the smarter bet, is nowhere near perfectly reliable (the odds are “good,” not one hundred percent), and that’s annoying. But merely inventing a God who will fix that won’t fix it. Empirically, we already know only one entity exists who actually ever does anything to fix that: us. So you might want to get on that.

If someone wants something (enough to pursue it) that you think is wrong of them to pursue, the only way you can ever argue that fact is either to correct some factual belief they have, or to appeal to some other value they have, something else they want, that they already agree supersedes the other thing you deem wrong to want, and thereby correct some fallacious step of logic in their thinking, by which they overlooked that their behavior is contrary to what they actually will prefer when properly informed and soundly reasoning. Either way, you are grounding moral facts in natural facts: the natural facts of what actually exists or how things actually work, or the natural facts of what a person really wants most in life—or more precisely, what a person would really want most, once they are reaching a conclusion about that without fallacy from only true premises. And if you attempt to argue these things, and you are wrong—if the facts of reality aren’t as you insist they are, if that person doesn’t want anything you claim they do, and still wouldn’t no matter what true facts you inform them of, then there simply aren’t any grounds for your claiming they “should” want what you claim they should. And that means you are the one who is wrong about morality.

Theists don’t like this, because it means they will pretty quickly have to start admitting they are wrong about what is and isn’t moral. They can’t have that, so they delusionally go on about our having to obey the God they invented in their own image or else we’ll have no reason to obey any moral code at all. They are lying. And we should stop taking advice from liars. We don’t need God to justify being moral. Because the way the world really works (and doesn’t), and the things we’ll want most out of life once we know what’s really available (and isn’t), fully suffice to justify and motivate a benevolent disposition in all rational persons. Moral facts then become fully discoverable natural facts—not random ideas we stumble across in our heads (as Wielenberg’s system seems to entail), and definitely not whatever our ignorant, delusional peers or ancestors have fantasized (as all modern theism entails).

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading