Will Holloway, everyone’s favorite metalhead, was kind enough to record the lecture Dr. Charlie Huenemann gave before SHAFT last week. Huenemann is a philosophy professor here at Utah State University. He spoke about the difficulty atheists face in grounding their morality, especially in the wake of Friedrich Nietzsche.
The reason for his lecture was not disabuse SHAFTers of their disbelief. Dr. Huenemann is an atheist who doesn’t consider theism “a live option.” Rather, Huenemann worries that many atheists (and people in general) aren’t very thoughtful about their basis for morality.
If you weren’t able to attend the lecture, or—like me— you just want to listen to it again, the lecture and the question/answer period are provided below.
Generally speaking, I see things quite differently than Huenemann, since I view defined morality as one of the great benefits of atheism. I comes down to, first of all, your commitment. Are you really an atheist? (speaking to no-one in particular.) If you are you acknowledge that absolute theistic morality is bogus, therefore the semblance of stability it provides is really an illusion and a disservice to humankind. There is no benefit to groups of people following commandments that were nearly arbitrary human compositions to begin with. That is merely following a fixed morality without the option to redact errors. In fact, that the 10 commandments (say) now seem anachronistic is a perfect example of what Huenemann speaks of when he laments the shifting sands of moral edict based on changing human nature. This is not something to complain about; it’s something to celebrate!
Anyway, Jon Stewart’s on and I’m out of time. Will return another time if anyone cares to discuss.
More comments?
I’m with Charlie in being concerned that people aren’t thoughtful enough about their basis of morality. The problem I have with the discussion is that I don’t think enough time was spent thinking about what Christianity and belief in God offered us in this respect. (The topic was barely touched upon in the lecture.) As a Christian, the moral question I grappled with is “Do you really think you can fulfill your duty to man by putting God before man?” (Answer: no. I also think both literalistic and theologically based interpretations of the Bible bring other troubling questions re morality and the supposedly “objective” version of morality Christianity bestowed is a fiction.) Of course Socrates God (the enforcer of the good) may not have to deal with that question but then we’re left with a “good” that is also quite malleable.
So where people didn’t think too much maybe God was a good basis for morality but if we’re counting on people not thinking too much we should have a lot of options. Poetry and sentimentalism should suffice. Let’s bring out the Whitman. Or maybe it’s just the belief that objective moral values exist that we should promote (go directly for it).
I appreciated Charlie saying in the Q&A that he feels most comfortable walking with Sextus Empiricus. I’ve been thinking recently how I need to keep the threat of an alternate view alive. For me this is a very active process where I have to build the secondary view to my satisfaction. Of course I may find a shallow reading of a particular view unsatisfying but what happens when I fulfill my many objections as best I can? And when even that buttressed view no longer suffices, it’s time to pick a new perspective that can become a new live threat.
I like to live with that live threat (and also in the perpetual possibility of the turn).
That’s not to minimize the longstanding problem of finding an objective basis for morality, just trying to free it from “the good ol’ days”.
The other upside to this is that if the Christian God is a real problem for morality (“treat others as you want to be treated”) then morality as we would have it only arrived after God died. Viva “the last men”.
Nietzsche is arguably “post-moral” in the same way Charlie claims to be post-theist (a term I think I’ll start using myself). Nietzsche shows that we don’t have to (and indeed should not) view morality as a set of laws or principles that have a practical, binding “force” on us. Being moral (the view I’m outlining would go) in that sense just isn’t a live option anymore. Rather, we can view “morality” as a highly personal approach toward life that is aligned with our innate instincts and drives, with an eye toward living a life that is “healthy” for us, continually cultivating newer, “higher” values by reflecting on the exemplary behavior of those we find most admirable, and by continually monitoring the dissonances and harmonies between and among our drives and trying to align them with our tentative, occurrent, and hopefully idiosycratic ideals.
Thanks, Michael, for this very nice summary view of Nz and morality. Quite helpful, I think, for the students on this blog who’ve not read Nz.
I think Nz’s morality as outlined there is really valuable on a personal level. The problem I (we?) grapple with is to do with the societal level where we also want a theory we can use to condemn sociopaths and those sorts of things. I can imagine an individual who could achieve an internal “healthy” harmony that isn’t at all what we would consider moral. I strive towards the healthy harmony of drives but within limits. Those limits likely put me at odds with Nz, idiosyncratic ideals notwithstanding.
Do you think that’s a real problem or do you think there’s a reading that isn’t so problematic?
For me, what’s lacking in this talk is any recognition of laws of reason or appeals to history when it might serve to comfort us. There isn’t really a lot of basis for worry that some day we may find stepping on puppies “good” and mercy “bad.” Things like that are usually a sign of social unhealth traceable to war or natural calamity. Proscription against murder and theft have remained remarkably constant across millennia. It’s only those edicts that serve questionable moral ends (e.g. anti-homosexuality) that are open to question and revision. You might think of it this way: if moral plasticity troubles you as much as it seems to Huenemann, you must necessarily believe we have reached some kind of apogee. Of course you don’t; so your problem is actually the nagging worry that we may somehow regress.
Hunt,
On what basis are you stating that “stepping on puppies” is probably an unchangable ethical standard? I think Huenemann provided an excellent insight and challenge that generally atheists too easily ‘celebrate’ the casting aside of religious morals (you seem to celebrate the demise of the 10 commandments as arbitrary religious rules. What is the rigorous basis you will use to impose ‘Thou shalt not step on puppies’?
I definitely agree with Professor Hueumann that most people don’t think carefully about these things and generally operate on the learn guidelines of their traditions. I would put atheists in this category too.
I think the Jewish methods of defining how to live is very reasonable. The Rabbinical tradition offers multi-voice interpretation of ‘the laws that fell from heaven’ (Torah) to provide guidelines for living (ethics). There is a set of rules from the past (Torah), there is a long history of recognized wise people giving case-study interpretation to the Torah (Talmud), and there is a method of recognizing current wise people who are connected to the past but provide new insights for a new age. In that tradition they recognize that a voice from heaven no longer speaks, so it is left to ‘those on earth’ to interpret the ancient words of God. This permits a humble human authority that can sluggishly adjust to a new age.
Several thoughtful religious traditions might be a good guide for developing an atheist tradition for determining ethics. It would need to permit some continuity but also permit adjustments to each new situation that humanity experiences. There should be no barrier for various theist, secular, and atheist traditions to collaborate on giving guidance for humanity in general with non-zero sum benefits to all.
I agree with the many posts on this website that a zero-sum fundamentalist religious view that speaks without humility as the Voice of God to the world is a dangerous and damaging way to define ethical standards for all. There are parallel atheist movements that have imposed equally arbitrary and damaging ethics, for example, the cultural revolution in Communist China.
Though being good is hard, knowing what is good is (usually) easy. Hillel the Elder (110BC-10BC) gives us one great formulation: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Actually, I was waiting for proposals for how atheist and free-thinkers can contribute to elevating ‘goodness’ in their lives, community, and broader human culture. SHAFT’s efforts to provide opportunity for altruistic activities is a good example of a positive action.
I think there is a great humanist, atheist tradition that is striving to provide positive guidelines for humanity and not just demanding freedom from theist moral categories. A great example of this tradition is provided in conference documents like “The Humanist Manifesto” and many writings against religion-government hegemony. I view the Humanist tradition as nothing more (or less) than one of the several thoughtful traditions that has a voice at the table to guide the current human moral climate. There are disagreements between traditions, but I imagine that each can positively influence and be influences by the others. I suggest that the chaotic thoughtless narcissism that seems to infect many cultures often occurs because there is a vacuum of any moral tradition (humanist or other). I do recognize that fundamentalist traditions often strive to impose and oppressive hegemony, which is an arrogant violence. Again, these are not limited to religious hegemonies. They are more a problem of fundamentalist mindsets that only see zero sum outcomes, that is, “if they win we lose, if we win they lose.”
Again I think SHAFT is a great platform to be a voice helping to answer ‘How should we live?’.