Just about everyone agrees it is wrong to rape someone. Even a rapist realises he is breaking some kind of rule. But what does “wrong” mean?
Whether we agree or not on specific actions, and whether there are grey areas between black and white, we all seem to have an intuitive sense that some actions are “right” or “good” and others “wrong” or “bad”, and that people “ought” to behave in a certain way. But what do these words mean? Is it true that we ought to behave in one way and not another? If so, why?
This is the first post in a series on moral philosophy. My thinking on this topic was initially triggered by considerations of The Moral Argument for God’s existence, especially as defended by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. But there is a lot more to morality than just that argument. In this post, I’ll explore moral theories, which attempt to answer questions like those above. In the next post, I’ll discuss the moral argument itself. And at some later time, I’ll consider the very interesting question, “Where did morality come from?“.
But before we begin, have a think for a minute, and write down two lists, the first one with 10 actions you’d consider right and the second with 10 actions you’d consider wrong. I’ll get you started:
Right: Help someone move house; Buy a meal for a homeless person; Encourage someone; Spend some quality time with your family
Wrong: Punch someone unprovoked; Murder someone; Rape someone; Cheat on your taxes
What is a moral theory?
The way I see it, morality (as a discipline) is the study of questions like those above, and the intuitions we all seem to have about right and wrong behaviour. We begin with observations (that people have certain intuitions about how we should conduct ourselves) and questions arising from them, and then we attempt to construct a theory that explains the observations and answers the questions. I’ll refer to such a theory as a moral theory. There are many moral theories out there, and it would be impossible to survey them all, but I’ll have a look at a few in this post.
Up to this point, I’ve used words like “right” and “wrong” fairly loosely. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that we already have some intuitive idea of what these words mean; even if we don’t agree on the finer details, we all basically know what we’re talking about. The second reason is that there is no universally accepted, precise definition of these terms. So in order to properly explain our observations, a moral theory must not only explain why we intuitively feel that certain actions are “right” and others “wrong”; it must also carefully define what is meant by these words, and a few others. Throughout the post, I will also use the word “good” synonymously with “right”, and “bad” with “wrong”. It should also be noted that in using the word “right” to describe an action, I am not implying there is only one correct option; often there will be more than one right action.
As far as I can tell, the most important and all-encompassing questions that must be answered by any moral theory are:
1. In the context of behaviour, what do the words “right” and “wrong” mean?
2. How well do these definitions correspond to the way people intuitively use them?
3. Why do different people classify some actions differently?
4. Is it true that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions? If so, why?
5. What does “ought” mean in this context?
6. Why do we intuitively feel that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions?
7. What grounds all of this?
The first three questions address the descriptive side of morality, and the next three touch on the prescriptive side. A moral theory cannot just define the words “good” and “bad”, and put actions into a “good” list and a “bad” list; it must also explain why we (at least feel we) “should” perform actions from the first list and not the second. The last question asks “What makes it so?” What is the end of all “Why?” questions? What is the unexplained or unexplainable element in this moral theory?
Note that a moral theory does not have to give black-and-white answers to all right-or-wrong questions; some actions will always be difficult to classify (such as abortion or voluntary euthanasia or many other situations where there are non-negligible arguments for a range of views). However, since one of the ultimate goals is to explain our moral intuitions, a moral theory would not be very good if its definitions of “right” and “wrong” classified bullying people as good but giving money to the poor as bad.
The remainder of this post examines a number of moral theories. It would be impossible to give an exhaustive treatment, and I will not even try to cover all the major theories (for example, I won’t even say a word about Moral Relativism). Instead, I’ll cover two theistic moral theories, as well as one pantheistic and one atheistic theory. My goal here is not to compare, contrast or critique these theories, but just to put them out there. Not all theists will agree with one of the two theistic theories, and the same goes for the pantheistic and atheistic theories. If you have a moral theory that I haven’t covered here, please feel free to add it to the comments.
Theistic moral theories
Although there are many of them, the key feature of theistic moral theories is that morality ultimately comes from God in some sense. Theistic moral theories will differ not just in the answer to the “Which God?” question, but also in the details of what “from God” means. Here, I’ll just mention two. These would fit best with a fairly conservative Christian conception of God, though not exclusively. To someone not familiar with Christianity, there might not appear to be a great deal of difference between the two but, despite some similarities, many Christians would accept one and strongly object to the other.
First we might consider a kind of “Divine Command Theory” (or DCT), in which the above questions might be answered as follows:
1. In the context of behaviour, what do the words “right” and “wrong” mean?
An action is “right” if it is commanded by God, and is “wrong” if it is forbidden by God. In fact, an action is “right” or “wrong” precisely because it is commanded or forbidden by God.
2. How well do these definitions correspond to the way people intuitively use them?
These definitions correspond well with our intuitive understanding because, in some sense, God has written his commands on our hearts.
3. Why do different people classify some actions differently?
We have differing opinions on which actions are right or wrong because our sinful nature clouds our ability to comprehend God’s commands written on our hearts. Some people have also been led astray by other religions or by nonreligious teachings.
4. Is it true that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions? If so, why?
We ought to do right actions and not wrong actions because God commanded us to. God created the universe, including us, so he has ultimate authority over us and, thus, we should obey him. Furthermore, we will be punished for eternity if we disobey, but rewarded for eternity if we obey.
5. What does “ought” mean in this context?
Here, “ought” is a categorical imperative. We absolutely must obey God’s commands, simply because he commanded them.
6. Why do we intuitively feel that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions?
We feel that we ought to obey God’s commands because, in addition to writing his commands on our hearts, God also speaks to our consciences, so that we know when we ought to do something or not.
7. What grounds all of this?
God’s authority, as creator and owner of the universe, is final. He made the universe and therefore has the ultimate right to decide what will happen in it.
Another theistic moral theory might answer the questions as follows:
1. In the context of behaviour, what do the words “right” and “wrong” mean?
An action is “right” or “wrong” if it is consistent or inconsistent with God’s nature.
2. How well do these definitions correspond to the way people intuitively use them?
These definitions correspond well with our intuitive understanding because, in some sense, we were created in the image of God, so his nature is somehow a part of us.
3. Why do different people classify some actions differently?
We have differing opinions on which actions are right or wrong because we also have a sinful nature that is at odds with God’s nature. In addition, we are not perfect, so we sometimes make mistakes or get led astray.
4. Is it true that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions? If so, why?
We ought to do right actions and not wrong actions, because it is our purpose to please God. It is also in the best interests of humankind and creation.
5. What does “ought” mean in this context?
To say we ought to do good is to say that God has required this of us, because it is both glorifying to him and wholesome for us, his creatures. There are also consequences based on whether we choose to do good or evil.
6. Why do we intuitively feel that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions?
This arises from us being created in the image of God, and having something of his nature imprinted on our conscience.
7. What grounds all of this?
At the end of the day, it all boils down to God’s nature. God is the great I AM; he is who he is. There can be no further explanation of this, and there does not need to be.
A pantheistic moral theory
Pantheism is the belief that the universe is a kind of god, the ultimate reality, and that, as such, we are all part of it. The universe is a conscious being, and we are its eyes and ears, its hearts and minds, the means through which it comprehends itself. As we look into a microscope or gaze out into space, and marvel at living cells or distant galaxies, it is as if the universe is admiring itself in a mirror.
With such views in mind, here is a moral theory that a pantheist might propose.
1. In the context of behaviour, what do the words “right” and “wrong” mean?
The universe is the ultimate reality, and has desires and needs. It desires to be treated in a certain way, and desires that the creatures within it (including us) act in a certain way. The desirable actions are the “right” actions, and the undesirable actions are the “wrong” ones.
2. How well do these definitions correspond to the way people intuitively use them?
These definitions correspond well with our intuitive understanding because we are part of the universe and are, in some sense, in tune with what it desires.
3. Why do different people classify some actions differently?
Although we are each moving towards a perfect state of being, we are not there yet. In particular, we are not yet completely in tune with the universe, and so sometimes misunderstand its desires.
4. Is it true that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions? If so, why?
People ought to behave in a way that brings pleasure to the universe because the universe is the ultimate reality, and bringing pleasure to the universe is our ultimate purpose.
5. What does “ought” mean in this context?
As part of the universe, our well-being is intimately connected with the universe’s well-being. Since the universe desires its own well-being, we ought to act to enhance the well-being of ourselves and each other.
6. Why do we intuitively feel that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions?
We intuitively understand this because we are part of the universe, so its nature is a part of us.
7. What grounds all of this?
The universe is the ground of this moral theory. In the pantheist world view, the universe is all there is. It is the ultimate reality, maybe even a necessary being, a reality with an explanation neither available nor needed. Treating each other well is the same thing as the universe treating itself well.
An atheistic moral theory
Again, there are many atheistic moral theories, and it is not my intention to do a comparative study. All I want to do is provide one set of answers to the above questions that does not invoke the existence of a god (whether a traditionally conceived theistic kind of god, or a less orthodox version such as in pantheism or even panentheism). This is not to say that this theory requires there to be no god. In fact, this theory could just as well be correct if there was a god as if there was none. It would just be that the notions of “right” and “wrong” were simply by-products of this god’s creation rather than an intentional element of it; maybe the universe is like God’s cosmic fish bowl, which he watches for amusement, but has no real cares about how we feel or behave. So to call this an “atheistic” theory is to simply say that the existence of a god is not an integral assumption.
As usual, I’ll explain this theory by giving the answers to the above seven questions. Since I have more sympathy towards this theory than the others I have suggested, I’ll go into a little more detail.
1. In the context of behaviour, what do the words “right” and “wrong” mean?
All actions have the potential to harm or help others. Call an action “right” if it helps others and/or does not harm them, or at least if it does roughly the least harm out of all actions you could reasonably be expected to do. Call an action “wrong” if it harms others and/or does not help them, or at least if it provides less help than other actions you could reasonably be expected to do. In fact, the “right and wrong scale” is really more like a continuous spectrum. Some actions, though not as good as others, are still good; for example, it is good to give $10 to the poor even though it is even better to give $20. Similarly, punching someone unprovoked is bad even though it is worse to murder them.
2. How well do these definitions correspond to the way people intuitively use them?
We seem to intuitively classify helpful actions as “right” and harmful actions as “wrong”. Just check the two lists you were asked to create at the start of the post. How many on the first list involve harming others, and how many on the second involve helping others?
3. Why do different people classify some actions differently?
Determining whether an action causes harm or helps people requires the ability to reason about other people’s feelings and desires, and about the likely effects of an action. Humans reason differently to each other, and value different things, so it is to be expected that different people would classify actions differently. In addition, there are usually many consequences and/or many people affected by a single action, and there are also short- and long-term effects; these all have to be taken into account when assessing the rightness or wrongness of an action, and can make it very difficult to do so. Finally, since we teach others our moral values, it is possible for some of our mistakes to be passed on to others.
4. Is it true that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions? If so, why?
A society in which people uniformly behave in a way that minimises harm and maximises helpfulness would result in all its members experiencing less harm from others and receiving more help. Anyone that values these kinds of benefits for themselves would at least wish for everyone else in society to perform right actions and not wrong actions. So a society like the above is a desirable society to such a person. But nobody should expect others to behave like that towards them if they do not behave like that themselves. In fact, if you perform wrong actions, it is likely that others will take action to stop you, which could result in you being harmed and/or locked up. So anybody that values the benefits that such a society provides ought to perform right actions and not wrong actions.
5. What does “ought” mean in this context?
Here we are dealing not with an “unrestricted ought”, but a “restricted ought”. Rather than there being a categorical imperative to perform right but not wrong actions, a person ought to behave in a certain way if they value a certain kind of society, and they ought to value such a society if they desire to be treated in a certain way. For a more detailed discussion of restricted and unrestricted “oughts”, and the idea that all “ought statements” at least implicitly involve an “if” clause, please see my recent post, Richard Dawkins, Reason, and the Is-Ought Problem.
6. Why do we intuitively feel that people ought to do right actions and not wrong actions?
By nature and through social learning, we intuitively feel compassion and empathy for others. When we see someone fall over, we know what it feels like, and have a strong desire to help them get back up. We know how we would like to be treated, and we feel strongly that we should treat others in the same way. Essentially, the “Golden Rule” is firmly entrenched in our thinking, whether we were born with it or learned it from our parents and society.
7. What grounds all of this?
There are two axiomatic elements underpinning this theory: our valuing of reason, and the desire to live in a society that benefits oneself. If Bob values a society in which he experiences a minimal degree of harm from other people and can rely on the help of others, then reason dictates that the best way to achieve such a society is to work towards a society in which everyone has the same benefits. If not all members of a society are afforded the same benefits, then those that miss out will be resentful, and may threaten the well-being of those that receive the benefits. Reason also dictates (as explained above) that the best way to achieve such a society involves acting in a way that gives these benefits to others. If Bob does not act in such a way, then he will quickly discover that people will be less likely to help him when he needs it, and less reluctant to hurt him; in fact, if they see Bob as a threat to their own well-being, they might even intend to hurt him. So, if Bob desires to live in such a society, and values reason, then he ought to behave in such a way.
But why do we value reason? And why do we desire to live in a society that benefits us? As I’ve said elsewhere, expecting a sensible discussion with someone who says they don’t value reason is likely to end in frustration. (There is really more to it than this, and I intend to discuss questions like “Why value reason?” and “How do you know reason works?” in a future post, and hopefully address the theistic Argument from Reason popularised by CS Lewis and Victor Reppert.) I highly doubt anyone genuinely believes that reason is worthless or that it is preferable to be unhappy rather than happy. More importantly, there are obvious evolutionary explanations for why we would value reason and happiness, another topic for future consideration.
Just a theory?
Each of the moral theories I have examined seeks to answer several important questions about our basic intuitions of how people should behave. Maybe one of these theories is correct, or maybe not. Maybe another one is, or maybe it would be impossible to completely answer all the relevant questions. We might all have different theories about the meaning and significance of morality, but we do seem to generally agree that we should help each other lead peaceful, happy and fulfilling lives.
