Ethics without God

Religious conservatives often assume that only a fear of God will lead people to moral behavior.  Since atheists don’t believe in God, religious conservatives often assume that atheists have no reason to be moral, so they will be immoral.  But there are plenty of ethical principles which people have proposed that don’t depend upon fear of God as their rationale for distinguishing moral and immoral conduct.  In this diary, I’d like to talk about a few of them, with an emphasis on Pragmatic Ethics.

In the first place, several famous philosophers have proposed moral codes that don’t rely on a judgmental God.  Aristotle proposed “the mean between excess and defect” as a universal standard of ethical conduct.  He allowed that there were some actions for which there was no “mean,” such as homicide, adultery and theft, but he regarded these as exceptions to the rule.  Kant argued that principles of conduct could be called “moral” only if they could serve as universal laws.  For Sartre, the greatest virtue is “authenticity” in one’s choice of action, with the caveat that one’s choice is simultaneously a choice for all humanity, and truly “authentic” choices will logically aim toward freedom.  My favorite Pragmatist, John Dewey, declared that “The genuinely moral person....forms his plans, regulates his desires, and hence performs his acts with reference to the effect they have upon the social groups of which he is a part.”

That pretty much sums up what I see as Pragmatic Ethics.  We are born and live in both social and natural environments.  The mere fact of our existence has consequences, certainly over time, and, to a less obvious degree, upon these environments while we live.  We do not exist in a void.  Everything in our natural and social world is interconnected, so everything we do has consequences – for us and for everything with which we are interconnected.  Thus, from birth to death, our existence in social and natural environments demands consideration beyond ourselves.  Selfish behavior is simply negligent behavior.  We may even be able to choose “non-existence” at some point.  But that does not eliminate the question of consequences.  Even our absence from social and natural environments will have consequences.  We should be mindful of those consequences, too.

For Pragmatists, as I see it, the question of ends and means is the same: “What are the likely consequences of this action, based on history, experience and science?”  Both the ends and means you choose have consequences.  The consequences of your actions for your social group have consequences for you as well, as a member of that social group.  What are the likely consequences of the goals you have chosen -- for you, for your social groups and for your environment?  What are the likely consequences of the means you have chosen to achieve your goals -- for you, for your social groups and for your environment?  Above all, on balance, is the likeliest outcome beneficial to you, to your social groups and to your natural environment?  If not, I would advise against the ends and/or means being considered.

As I noted above, religious conservatives assume that people will act morally only if they fear that God will punish them for immoral behavior.  Who or what enforces Pragmatic Ethics?  I say the answer is Reality.  If you do things that harm others, others are likelier to harm you.  If you give no thought to your use of the air, water and land, your negligence is likely to result in suffering.  Generally speaking, if you don’t consider the likely consequences of your actions, you are more likely to come to harm.*  There is an element of this in U.S. law, which requires “due diligence” prior to actions and punishes “negligence” for lack of appropriate consideration and preparation.

Unfortunately most of us spend little time pondering the likely consequences of our actions.  Indeed, I have been a sinner in my own creed.  But I don’t need a threatening God to keep me in line.  I have suffered directly, and could suffer indirectly, for my lack of forethought and consideration before saying and doing some things.  I conclude that we should all lead more mindful lives.  It would be beneficial to all of us.


*    The concept of “Karma,” while attractive to me, suggests a certainty of consequences which I cannot affirm.  Thus my recourse to likelihood and probabilities.