What are you, the god of morality?!
In Turch (228) you discuss an article by David Enoch and his colleagues on statistical and practical probabilities in the legal context. To reject their rationalization of our intuition you write, among other things:
“Furthermore, even if this consideration were correct (here is my own counterfactual), I do not think it offers an explanation for our intuition that distinguishes between these two types of evidence. I highly doubt whether people who feel that one should not convict on the basis of statistical evidence have really made such a practical calculation. It certainly does not justify the universality and validity that we feel towards the distinction between these two types of evidence. Therefore, it is more likely that the difference between the two types of evidence is a legal consideration. We have a feeling that it is wrong or inappropriate to convict on the basis of general evidence that does not directly address the accused, even if its degree of certainty is similar.”
I would like to draw from this argument to another disagreement you have with Enoch regarding the validity of morality. You argue that God is needed as a commandment (or will) of morality to give it binding validity, otherwise why would I do it?
Why can’t your method be made just as difficult? There are masses of people who were raised and educated as atheists, God was never a part of their lives, but still feel intuitively committed to morality. It is not at all likely that they are subconsciously secret believers. Their intuition is that the very ontological existence of moral norms (which you also admit is a fact) is their validity and there is no need to reach out to someone else who wants them from us (God).
I no longer remember the details of the discussion there. Even if I have some intuition, it does not exempt me from justifications. If I have an intuition that morality is binding, then it is indeed binding. But now I can ask how this can be, since without God it is impossible for morality to be binding. Therefore, I explain that deep down in their hearts they probably feel that there is a God, even if they are not aware of it.
In the case of statistical evidence, it is unlikely that people actually do this without some justification. We grew up with morality and were taught stories about atheistic morality, etc. In the legal field, it is just an invention and it is unlikely that people do not have some basis in it. As for the basis it suggests, it would not seem likely to me that it exists in the depths of people’s minds.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
