Unveiling the Moral Divide
Subjective morality and its implications
Objective Morality
Theists assert that moral principles and values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures, regardless of their beliefs or traditions. Moral truths, according to them, exist in reality; independently of human opinion or consensus, and can be discovered through reason and intuition alone.
Examples of objective moral truths include the belief that crimes like murder and rape are always wrong, regardless of the cultural or social context in which they occur. Similarly, actions such as honesty, kindness, and compassion, are universally valued and invariably praiseworthy.
From a purely atheistic perspective, however, objective morality does not exist. Atheism typically rejects the notion of a higher power or divine authority that provides an absolute moral framework for human behaviour. Without a transcendent source of morality, the foundation of ethical principles becomes subjective, shaped by individual beliefs, societal norms, and cultural values. This subjectivity implies that moral judgments are contingent upon human interpretation and are susceptible to variation and disagreement. Without a universally recognised moral code, atheists often rely on reason, empathy, and a shared understanding of human wellbeing to establish an alternative approach to ethics.
Reality Check
In addition, theism differentiates between what takes place within the animal kingdom and what happens among the human species through the exercise of free will and the inherent conscience placed within all humans. The instinctive perception of God and accountability before Him strongly augments the above and directs it to its correct ethical course, serving as an effective deterrent even in the absence of surveillance and observation.
Contrarily, we are faced with some irksome questions. For instance, why should a rapist and a murderer be wrong in what they are doing? Are they simply not fulfilling the Darwinian model by bringing satisfaction to themselves at the expense of others? A more apt question may be, ‘why should such criminals be punished for something they were ‘designed’ to do by nature?’
In fact, atheistic societies are forced to adopt ‘objective morality’ and its political formulations. This is because objective moral principles - regardless of belief (or lack thereof) in them - must be adhered to, to prevent crime and deter criminals, and run a safe and successfully functioning society. No society can afford to leave such principles at the mercy of democratic decisions, which essentially is the predominance of subjective values.
Some Points to Consider
In the realm of animal behaviour, we often observe instances where animals treat other animals unfavourably. In such instances we usually refrain from employing the terms used for human beings. So, for instance, if one animal kills another of its own species, we describe it as “killing” but do not call it "murder"; understandably, as the term murder carries moral undertones.
Similarly, in the domain of sexual interactions, there can be instances where one individual (like a male goat) forces itself upon another (female of its kind). Such an act, as abhorrent as it may seem, is not labeled as ‘rape’. And rightly so! For animals do not possess the same moral agency as we do; hence why applying the same terms would evidently be unjust.
If someone were to say this is all semantics, and in reality, it is all the same, the question that arises then is, 'why do we then not hold animals accountable for the same actions?' Or 'why do we not let human criminals off the hook, if indeed it is all the same?'
The truth of the matter is we know deep down that there are clear differences that separate us from the animal kingdom. And it is not just about the higher level of consciousness that humans have - though that is part of the equation; it is mainly to do with the moral agency - reflecting objective morality - that we implicitly acknowledge and understand.
‘Should’ Vs ‘Would’
If accountability to man-made laws deterred someone from committing crimes such as murder, theft and rape, what should / would happen in the absence of such deterrents?
The moral ‘should’ stipulates what ought to be done; something which cannot be determined purely by scientific means, and where atheism finds its resting place too. And the inevitable ‘would’ - where objective morality is non-existent - is where the Darwinian model, equating humans to animals, asserts that in the absence of deterrents, and where accountability before a ‘Higher Power’ does not exist, the ‘law of the jungle’ would kick into action and people will do as they desire and please.
From the above we can see that theism, especially where reverence to God is paramount and sins are not considered lightly, exists to protect the human race, and beyond.
Indeed, this may have been the impetus behind the famous statement of the French philosopher Voltaire who said: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him".
The Darwinian Model & Hitler
Furthermore, if morality is not deemed as an objective truth, we are faced with dangerous implications. Nazis, for instance, believed in the superiority of race and its proponents insisted it to be morally correct. How would atheism counter such a narrative from a purely scientific perspective?
Recently some academics have asserted that Hitler was driven by social Darwinism (a concept which seeks to apply principles of natural selection to human societies). Though it needs to be emphasised that Hitler's beliefs and the actions of the Nazi regime were rooted in a variety of ideological factors, the fact, according to these academics, is that Darwinian evolution and eugenics did contribute to the rise of fascism and the ensuing genocidal campaigns.
Weikart, in his book "From Darwin to Hitler" (2004), argues that Darwinism and eugenics had paved the way for Nazi ideology, although the exact path may have been indirect. In his subsequent book, "Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress" (2009), Weikart goes further, suggesting that Darwin's "evolutionary ethics" motivated Hitler to engage in the abhorrent behaviour that he did engage in.
The documentary ‘Expelled’ (2008)1 suggests a possible connection too. In the film, philosopher David Berlinski, who received his training at Princeton, asserts during a conversation with Weikart that if one reads "Mein Kampf" (Hitler’s philosophical autobiography), particularly in German, the correspondence between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas becomes apparent and striking.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while atheism struggles to provide a solid foundation for moral principles, theism acknowledges the presence of objective moral values and the concept of accountability to a higher power. By actively striving to truly recognise and uphold 'universal' and 'objective' moral principles, can society shape a more compassionate and just world, ensuring the unwavering adherence to moral standards in all circumstances, irrespective of scrutiny or the fear of consequences.
The film explores the topic of intelligent design and alleges discrimination against proponents of this idea within the academic community.