Exploring Critiques Further pt 3.
Metaphysical Grounding
Critics who seek a more solid metaphysical foundation for ethics often argue that secular humanism is incomplete without a transcendent or supernatural basis for moral truths. However, these critics must face the same challenge: proving the existence of their supernatural reality. Without such proof, their claims to objective morality can be seen as equally subjective, based on unverified metaphysical assumptions rather than empirical evidence.
1. Unproven Supernatural Claims
The foundation of many supernatural ethical frameworks—whether grounded in divine command theory or religious metaphysics—relies on the existence of an unproven supernatural reality. If critics argue that morality requires a divine or metaphysical grounding, they must first demonstrate that this grounding exists. However, without verifiable evidence of the supernatural, they are engaging in an assumption of truth that parallels the supposed subjectivity they critique in secular humanism.
2. Subjectivity in Metaphysical Morality
Even if these critics claim their moral framework is based on divine or supernatural authority, the interpretation of that authority's will or laws remains subject to human understanding and cultural context. Different religious or spiritual traditions interpret moral principles in varying, and sometimes conflicting, ways. This suggests that their approach to morality is also subject to human perspectives and experiences, making it not as "objective" as they claim.
For example:
Religious texts can be interpreted in different ways, leading to varied ethical conclusions across cultures and sects within the same religion.
Claims of divine moral authority often rely on subjective interpretations, historical contexts, and human institutions that mediate divine teachings.
3. Similarities with Humanist Morality
Secular humanism acknowledges that moral principles emerge from human experience, reason, and cultural context. Critics argue that this makes humanist morality subjective, but if religious or supernatural morality also depends on human interpretation of divine commands or metaphysical principles, it too can be considered subjective—though framed differently. Both systems rely on human agency to determine what is "moral," differing only in whether the grounding is natural or supernatural.
4. Blind Spot in Objectivity Claims
Critics of secular humanism may not recognize that they are engaging in a similar kind of subjectivity. While they claim their morality is based on something transcendent, the interpretation and application of those moral principles are still influenced by cultural, historical, and personal biases. This makes their system subject to the same philosophical concerns as secular humanism—namely, that morality is ultimately shaped by human context and cognition, whether or not it appeals to the divine.
Objective Morality
This counter-critique exposes the double standard in how critics of secular humanism view moral subjectivity. Without solid evidence for the supernatural basis they claim, their moral systems face the same epistemological challenges as secular humanism. In essence, both are forms of human-constructed morality, but the religious or metaphysical critic may not realize that their claims to objectivity are similarly based on subjective human interpretation. Indeed, absolute moral truths, especially when historical examples show that these so-called absolutes can become outdated or morally problematic. Here’s how this counter-critique can be framed:
1. The Problem with Absolute Moral Truths
Advocates of objective morality often claim that there are unchanging, universal moral truths that should guide human behavior across all times and cultures. However, historical examples show that certain moral "absolutes" can become morally objectionable over time. For instance, many religious texts, including the Bible, condone practices like slavery, which modern societies now reject as deeply unethical. The fact that such practices were once accepted and justified by an appeal to "absolute" moral principles highlights the dangers of relying on rigid, unchanging moral systems.
Example of Biblical Slavery: In the Bible, slavery is regulated but not condemned or abolished. What was once considered acceptable or even divinely sanctioned behavior is now universally seen as morally wrong. This evolution shows that moral understandings can—and should—change as human knowledge, empathy, and wisdom develop. If we adhered to absolute moral truths, we might still be trapped in outdated ethical frameworks that no longer align with modern values.
2. The Value of Evolving Ethics
A counter-critique to the argument for objective morality is that morality must evolve with human understanding and societal progress. Ethical systems grounded in virtues, empirical observation, and reason have the flexibility to adapt to new information, cultural shifts, and a deeper understanding of human well-being. There should be a constant examination to illustrate whether, as Sam Harris promotes, such a moral principle moves us towards suffering and away from flourishing and vice versa. This adaptability is critical in avoiding moral stagnation or the perpetuation of unjust systems.
Moral Evolution Over Time: Human rights, gender equality, racial equality, and the abolition of slavery are all examples of moral advancements that were not part of historical "absolute" moral frameworks but emerged through reason, critical inquiry, and social progress. Christian apologists may say that human rights root in understanding that all people are made in the image of God and may well be right in that this expression seeds the future expression of Human Rights. However, how human rights, which is expressed in the bible versus how it is expressed in the age of enlightenment is a continuum of ever deepening understanding. Likewise, science has Aristotelian roots and yet how science is conceived in Aristote’s time is embryonic in expression. It has evolved. Evolving wisdom, rather than rigid absolutes, can address new challenges and reflect contemporary values of justice and compassion.
3. Rejecting Unchanging Absolute Moral Truths
The counterargument suggests that absolute moral truths might not exist or might not be desirable because they are static and fail to accommodate the complexities of changing human societies. Instead of looking for fixed moral laws, we should aim for a system of ethics that evolves through reason, empathy, and wisdom—one that can adjust to new understandings of justice, fairness, and human flourishing.
Flaws in Absolute Morality: If absolute moral truths are considered unchangeable, they risk becoming oppressive or harmful in light of contemporary ethical insights. For example, patriarchal structures, discrimination, and punitive laws have often been justified by appeals to unchanging moral principles in religious or traditional contexts, but these structures often perpetuate harm. This illustrates the need for an ethical system that can be continuously refined.
4. Ethics as an Evolving Process
Rather than seeking an objective, unchanging foundation for morality, it might be more productive to view ethics as a process of growth—one that takes into account reason, collective well-being, and critical reflection. This view does not aim to find a set of eternal moral truths but focuses on the ongoing refinement of moral principles in light of human experience and social development.
Pragmatic and Flexible Morality: Systems like secular humanism or the Enlightened Lifestyle offer ethical frameworks grounded in virtues and critical inquiry, which are capable of evolving over time. This approach is practical because it allows for flexibility and the accommodation of new ideas, values, and perspectives, rather than relying on fixed, often outdated, moral codes.
This counter-critique argues that the pursuit of absolute moral truths is not only unrealistic but potentially harmful. Moral truths that are considered absolute, such as those condoning slavery in religious texts, demonstrate the limitations of rigid moral systems. Instead, ethics should be seen as a dynamic, evolving process, shaped by reason, empathy, and an ever-growing understanding of human flourishing. Moving away from absolute moral truths toward an evolving ethical framework allows society to continuously improve and adapt to new moral challenges in a thoughtful and compassionate manner.
