From Atheist to Theist (Part 9)
Ethics and Morality
Ethics and Morality
As an atheist I would have argued that I was an ethical person. For example, I believed strongly in journalistic ethics and in ethical behavior as it impacted news coverage and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But what was the source of my ethics and ethical behavior? Did that source of ethics affect my personal life? No. I bent personal ethics to suit my selfish interests. What was the source of that behavior? same source? different source? no source?
Was it ethical to lie, cheat, steal, murder? Maybe, I thought, depending on the “situation.” Situation ethics became a mantra for me as an atheist. It fit my belief system well and allowed me to do whatever I wanted to do, without a sense of guilt. I didn’t believe in an absolute moral law or a moral law ‘giver,’ so there was no penalty unless someone imposed their morality on me through some system of penalties that were too big for me to overcome (e.g. local, state, or federal laws).
Having been an atheist and knowing many atheists through the years, I recognize that all atheists are not alike – even as all theists are not alike. I’ve known atheists who were more ethical in their thinking and behavior than I was and some who were less ethical. The issue was not quantity, but quality. What was the quality or source of one’s morality? Was it objective or subjective? situational? relational? revelational? Was there a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in every situation in life? any situation? If so, was it an absolute? a law that must be followed? If so, who said? or can it be different from one person to another, one couple to another, one family to another, one tribe to another, one nation to another? Can we differ in our definition of what is moral and immoral? right and wrong? Is what is right for you necessarily right for me? Should I have to bow to your ethical will or am I free to determine my own moral course and follow that path to its eventual end?
I was not comfortable discussing morality with Christians. I didn’t like their brand of ethics. I liked mine much better. Christian ethics with their absolutism of ‘God’s Law’ did not fit my lifestyle nor way of thinking. My ‘wanter’ wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. I didn’t want to check my desires at anybody’s door. I was an atheist, a free thinker, a free man – or so I thought.
Moral Relativism
I was a moral relativist – all truth was relative. Ethical subjectivism best described my beliefs and lifestyle. There were no objective moral truths or values. Morality changed based on my interests, needs and circumstances. I didn’t want anyone questioning me about my morals. Nobody had the right to judge me. I could think what I wanted to think, believe what I wanted to believe, and do what I wanted to do.
However, a couple of Christians I got to know challenged my thinking about moral relativism by saying it was ‘self-defeating’ (self-refuting). I said that all truth was relative, but they asked me if that was true. I said it was, but they then asked me how I could make a true statement if all truth was relative. How could I know truth if everyone had their own truth and those ‘truths’ differed in content and scope? What if my truth was not THE truth? What if I was wrong? What if my belief system was really false? They pointed out that my belief system about truth and morality was flawed by its inconsistency.
My new Christian friends had the ability to challenge my thinking without challenging me as a person. Instead of making me defensive, their friendly challenges got me thinking. How could I make the absolute claim that all truth is relative if I didn’t believe in absolutes? Good question. If there is no truth, how can I know if what I believe is true? What is truth?
People often don’t think much about what they think. I was like that. I thought right and wrong were what I said they were, but how could that be true if millions of other people thought the opposite was true? Who gets to choose what’s right or wrong? Is anybody right or does ‘might’ make right? Is it the strongest person, group of people, or military power that wins the right to decide what’s right until a stronger opponent rips that away from them? How does that make anything right? If there is no right, then what right do we have to demand any rights?
Civilized people are thought to be civilized because they advance in areas of social development. That includes believing in the rights of a people to have rights. But if there is no absolute right or wrong, how can we know if we’re civilized? Is civilization even possible if nothing is right or wrong? good or evil? moral or immoral? Situational ethics quickly becomes a slippery slope.
Children don’t need to be taught that they have rights. That seems to be inborn. Wanting what we want when we want it is a natural response to our environment. What seems to be unnatural (i.e. against our nature) is bowing to the rights of others (e.g. sharing). If you have children or are around children, you understand how that works. Children want what they have and they want what you or another child has. They will scream and cry if someone takes away what they believe is theirs, but have no problem taking what another child believes is theirs. If you tell them to stop, they go. If you tell them to go, they stop. If you tell them to come, they leave. If you tell them not to touch something, they touch it. We are born with a selfish nature. If there are no absolutes, no moral law, how does a family work? If everyone is selfish and does what is right in their own eyes, how can any group of people be civilized?
Parents and Morality
Parents are the first moral law children face in their lives. Parents teach their boys and girls the rules of the household. If a child breaks house rules, they learn something about penalties for breaking the law. My generation remembers spankings and loss of privileges. Though spankings have gone out of style for many modern parents, moms and dads are still finding ways to impose their will on their little ones. Most parents believe it’s important for their children to learn how to follow a system of social rules. What those rules are can vary from family to family but most still see the need for rules – especially when multiple children are in a family. Rules can protect life and limb of younger siblings.
Understanding how a family works, or should work, gives us some insight into how a society works. We don’t want our children purposely hurting other members of the family. We don’t want our neighbors purposely hurting us. We don’t want our children stealing from each other. We don’t want our neighbors stealing from us. Our desire for personal safety becomes a desire for family safety when we marry and have children. Our desire for family safety becomes a desire for societal safety as we understand that families are members of a larger community. If I want to be safe and secure in my life and the life of my family, I need to support laws of behavior that bring safety and security to the community. Over time that desire translates into laws for regions, states and nations.
Viewing Morality as Opinion
I viewed morality as someone’s opinion. You have an opinion and so do I. I have as much right to my opinion as you do to your opinion. If our opinions disagree, well, that’s your opinion.
My new friends shared a different view of morality. They believed that morals are not personal opinions, but behavior responding to objective truth. We talked about that for hours, day after day, week after week. I did not move from subjective morality to objective morality quickly or easily, but I did move — eventually.
I began to see that my core belief was based on objective morality and that I could not hold to relativism as a viable way of living. Relativism, whether played out culturally or conventionally, or as I did subjectively, could not work in the real world. If everyone did whatever they wanted to do based on their definition of right or wrong, it would lead to chaos. In fact, relativism had already accomplished that throughout the history of the world.
If you asked me when I was an atheist what I thought about serial killers, I would have said they were terrible people. If you asked me what I thought about child abusers, same answer — terrible people. If you asked me what I thought about my doing whatever I wanted to do even if other people thought it was wrong, different answer. What I did was my business. However, that came with a built-in problem.
One of the Christians I was talking with at the time called my thinking ‘every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes.’ That sounded good to me on the surface, but he asked me what I thought about a man doing whatever was right in his own eyes if doing that meant hurting me or someone I loved? I didn’t like that, but how could I argue against it if the other person had the same attitude I did about right and wrong? What happens when what’s right for me bumps into what’s right for you?
As an atheist I was beginning to see a problem with ‘my way’ morality. I wanted what I wanted, but so did most everyone else. What if other people wanted something I didn’t want and what they wanted affected me negatively? I didn’t care that what I wanted affected them negatively, but I did care about what they did to me and mine. That’s a problem if morality is ‘relative.’ What I believe is right for me may be wrong for someone else and what they believe is right for them may be wrong for me. So, who wins that argument?
Back to serial killers and child abusers ... if someone asked me as an atheist why I thought they were terrible people, how would I answer and what would be the basis of my answer? If morality is subjective and relative, who’s to say that killing lots of people is a bad thing to do or that abusing children is wrong? Good question. But what’s the answer?
I knew some things were wrong and some things were right without even thinking about it. It was right to help someone in need. It was wrong to take advantage of someone in need. Where did that come from? As a journalist I knew that someone convicted of murder should receive an appropriate sentence, but why did I think that? Was it just because I had grown up in a culture that believed murder was wrong and that murderers should be punished? If I had been raised in another culture that believed murder was right and that murderers should be rewarded, would I have thought differently?
Cultural Morality?
Some people would say, yes, morality is cultural. But how does that work if someone murders me? Should they be rewarded for doing that? Is that right? What happens when cultures clash? One culture believes murder is wrong and the other culture believes murder is right. Which culture is right and which is wrong? Or can there be a “right” and “wrong” in a culturally “relative” world? Relativism believes that cultures/societies decide what’s right and wrong within their culture. There is no such thing as a “universal” truth. Everything is relative. So, how does that work for everyone?
What about sub-cultures? I covered gangs as a reporter and some gang cultures believed that murder was honorable. Some even included murder as part of initiation rights to become a member of the gang. Since their culture believed murder was right, were they wrong to kill someone from another gang sub-culture that believed it was wrong for anyone to kill them? Which sub-culture was right? What happens when gang sub-cultures collide within a larger, general culture that believes gang sub-cultures are wrong? Is the general culture wrong to force their morality on the sub-culture?
I began to see a crack in relativism because of its perspective of ethical subjectivism; where morality was nothing more than personal opinion. Cultural relativism leads to sub-cultural relativism and finally individual relativism. Where does that end? Nihilism?
Moral Neutrality?
Another problem was with moral neutrality; the belief that no one should force anyone to believe any particular thing. Everyone has the right to do what’s right in their own eyes. I still didn’t believe in God, but I could see that the relativism I held so dear was a two-edged sword that could easily cut me.
The Christians I was talking with presented morality as objective. They believed morality was universal and came from an authority greater than human opinions and personal and cultural desires. They believed true morality came from a moral authority greater than any human mechanism. They believed that authority could only be God; a Being with perfect knowledge and wisdom about the human condition who could determine the best way for people to live successfully. They also believed that the best way God could impact the human race for morality was with commandments rather than suggestions, because humanity would choose poorly unless directed by God’s wisdom. That was because of their tendency toward doing what they wanted (selfishness) rather than what was right.
They went on to explain that when God created humans He placed in their hearts and minds a knowledge of His law so that even their conscience was a witness to what was right and wrong. They said that even people who had never heard about God had this moral sense within them; thus making morality universal. They also said that because of humanity’s tendency toward sinning, God’s ultimate answer to our problem was to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins and to be raised for our ‘justification’ (being placed in a right relationship with a merciful and forgiving God).
All of that had the sound of ‘religion’ to me, so I needed to back away and think about it for a while. I could see their point about moral relativism being ‘self-defeating.’ Moral relativists, like myself, said there was no absolute or objective moral truth. However, that statement was a ‘truth’ claim which was not necessarily true if there was no absolute truth. So, what was true? Objective morality or subjective morality? How could we ever know truth if truth is relative? I began to see problems with that method of thinking. I was a journalist and believed in ‘finding the truth’ in every story, but if there was no absolute truth how could I possibly report ‘the truth?’
Where do you go with that kind of thinking? The more I thought about it, the worse it got. What do you do when that happens? Stop thinking about it? But the problem for me was that for some reason I believed truth existed. I had chosen a career based on that belief. Somewhere deep inside me I believed there were things that were true and things that were false – things that were right and things that were wrong. That collided with my desire to live my life any way I wanted to live it.
What if the way I was living my life was wrong? What if there was a right way to live and I wasn’t living that way? What if these Christians were right and what I was feeling inside was a universal sense of morality put there by a Being who was older, bigger and wiser than humans? What if that Being expected me to live my life according to a particular moral set of commandments?
If I really believed in moral relativism, that there is no objective morality, why did I hide some of my actions from people in my life? Why should it matter what someone thought about what I thought or did, if there were no absolutes? Where did my feelings of guilt come from? Atheists weren’t supposed to feel guilty about anything, so why was I having those feelings? Was it because of what these Christians were saying or because what they were saying was stirring up something real inside of me?
I had lots of questions and concerns about these issues of morality, a moral law and a moral lawgiver. These were questions and concerns I had not experienced before as an atheist. I was definitely uncomfortable talking about morality because I was seeing major flaws in relativism: self-defeating, circular thinking, a system that didn’t work in a real world of real people with real differences of opinion and beliefs. I had a lot more thinking to do about the question of morality.
Next Time
What came next was a big surprise because I had no idea that scientific investigation supported many things revealed in historical aspects of the Bible. I’ll share some of the important insights from the science of archaeology in the next part of From Atheist to Theist.
How Do I Subscribe To A ‘Section’ On Substack?
If you're a new subscriber to a publication on Substack, you'll receive all sections by default.
If you're already a subscriber and the writer has created a new section or sections, you'll need to subscribe to them in order to receive a new email newsletter or see a post in your app Inbox.