Q&A: The Validity of Moral Values for a Rational Non-Believer
The Validity of Moral Values for a Rational Non-Believer
Question
Greetings and blessings.
A friend introduced me to the honorable Rabbi and to some of his thought.
The Rabbi is indeed an impressive person, and I enjoyed listening to and reading him.
My question:
In chapter 1 of “God Plays with Dice,” the Rabbi argues that there is no rational justification for adopting moral values without belief in God. And that a non-believer’s choice of moral values indicates that this person actually does believe in God, though not in a fully conscious way, or else that this is a person making an obviously irrational choice.
In my view, the evolution of the individual does not end with the individual. I argue that the society of which we are a part is an organism that obeys the same laws of nature. And more than that, without the survival of society, and society’s support for our personal survival, we have very little chance of surviving. And there are reciprocal relations between the evolution of the individual and the society in which he exists.
If my personal survival depends on my being part of a surviving society, then adopting socially accepted moral values is a very rational choice. Even if I do not believe in God and am motivated solely by my personal survival, this is still a rational choice.
I would be glad to receive a response.
Answer
Hello Ron.
First, I prefer questions to be sent through my website (link below).
There is a mistaken assumption in what you say, on the conceptual level. It is a confusion between what is and what ought to be.
The question is not whether this is a rational choice, but whether there is a binding value here. What you are proposing is what is called a “naturalistic explanation” of morality, that is, grounding it in facts. But any grounding of morality in facts (in your case: its contribution to the survival of society is a fact) is a fallacy, commonly called the “naturalistic fallacy.” A naturalistic explanation explains how some tendency arose in us (evolution created in us a tendency to do good), but it does not explain why this is binding. Think about a person who behaves immorally. What could you claim against him? That he is not obeying tendencies that exist within him? That he is not contributing to the survival of society? So what? There are many tendencies within me, and I do not obey all of them. Why does the fact that I have a tendency obligate me to act accordingly? This again is the naturalistic fallacy, because the existence of the tendency is a fact, and a fact does not create a norm. And if you claim against him that he is not contributing to the survival of society, he will ask you where it comes from that there is an obligation to contribute to the survival of society (especially if this runs against my own survival, or comes at my expense). Here you are smuggling in some value through the back door, and regarding it you have no justification (not even a naturalistic justification).
I explained the connection to God in the debate with Professor David Enoch, described in column 456–457 on the site. There you can also find a link to our face-to-face discussion.
Discussion on Answer
Notice that you are again making the same mistake at exactly the same point. The fact that parents sacrifice themselves for their children is a fact, and it can be explained evolutionarily. This also exists in the animal kingdom. The question is not whether they sacrifice, but why? Or whether it is binding and valid? If someone were to act otherwise, would you come to him with complaints? Is a goat that does not sacrifice itself for its young morally defective? Would you come to it with complaints?
I again refer you to the above columns, because it is explained very well there.
Honorable Rabbi, Dr. David, again, many thanks,
I watched the discussion “If There Is No God, Is Everything Permitted?”, and I think I understood what you are arguing.
Thank you, and have a good week.
Ron continued and asked:
Honorable Rabbi, Dr. Michael David, many thanks to you for the detailed answer.
You said that a fact does not derive a norm. I would like to give an example where a fact can derive binding values.
It is a fact that parents are usually devoted to their offspring, even to the point of giving up their own survival. This too is a fact that stems directly from evolutionary motives.
But from this fact there does indeed derive a social moral norm regarding the duties of a parent toward his offspring.
Similarly, my devotion to my children—their survival, their happiness, and their success—derives my commitment to society and to its moral values. This is how I educated my children, Based on the assessment that this would improve their chances of succeeding, surviving, and reproducing..
And the justification for adhering to moral values is only my personal commitment to my children, and through them to society.
And regarding a person who did not have children, who has no personal survival interest, he can still be committed to society and to moral values, similar to the “altruistic gene” observed in bees and ants. Such a childless person takes action that, in the best case, contributes nothing to his own personal survival, but helps his brothers or nephews.
As for a person who acts immorally, according to the above examples, he is (in my opinion) acting against himself. The individual has no possible physical existence without society. And what I would say to such a person would depend on what result I thought I could achieve.
Are these not valid examples of binding norms derived from evolutionary facts?
“And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is indeed a Jewish value that, in my opinion, there is no reason one cannot adopt as a binding value without belief in God. (Like removing scaffolding from a building that can stand without it.)
I accept the centrality of religion in the historical development of human morality and society, but in my view human morality can exist and be justified even without belief in God. Our dependence on society (which religion created) is itself the survival-based justification.
Forgive me for the poverty of my knowledge and the low level of my arguments.
Thanks in advance,