A Secular Worldview Allows for Objective Morality

The word “moral” was never given a secular definition. I think we may have to admit that religion conceived of the word “moral” since the first time we see it is in translating St. Gregory the Great’s (that’s Pope Gregory I.) Moralia, sive Expositio in Job. While this may be the case, religion didn’t invent the phenomenon that this word was created to discuss. Namely: when human beings interact with one another they can affect one another physically, emotionally, and mentally. Words like “moral” and “morality”, and terms like “moral behavior”, are tools with which we are able to discuss this phenomenon in the hopes of discovering the most “good” form of human behavior.

If this is the case then it stands to reason why many people argue that morality can only come from God. It also explains why most atheists (at least in my experience) are moral relativists. I myself was a moral relativist only slightly more than a year ago. I was set along the path of questioning that view after an interview I gave with philosopher Stephen Law of the
University of London’s Heythrop College. Theists believe God is the standard actions must be measured against when it comes to determining morality, and why wouldn’t they? The church seems to be the first to coin the term and it’s the term we still use. Atheists deny the existence of God(s) due to an overwhelming lack of evidence for them and somehow, understandably, believe the absence of a divine creator also removes the possibility for objective morality. It’s as if atheists agree that if there were a God there’d be an objective morality but since there’s not, there’s not. It’s like that old saying goes, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

I suppose the cause of this god-or-nothing stance on morality is obvious: When the word “moral” was conceived, no secular definition was given to it. Why would there have been? I doubt there were many secular scholars — or people of influence — in 6th century Europe. Certainly there was a secular way of looking at human behavior and its effects. Certainly there was a secular way to determine which behaviors were favorable and which were unfavorable. Certainly there existed a secular way for people to look at all this … but there were no secularists around to do so. The consequence was that the first and only moral system measured human behavior against God’s — the first and only “moral” system, for a long time, was a theistic “moral” system.

Well now there are secularists. Now there are people who are able to observe that, “Hey, there is a way to look at and judge human behavior without comparing it to God’s desired behavior” and “Hey, we can in fact determine if a behavior yields positive or negative, helpful or harmful, good or bad results.” and, recently, at least for this secularist, “Hey, within this secular morality, there can be objective moral statements.”

I think we’ve been translating the word “objective”, in concerns to moral judgment, incorrectly. But before that, before objective morality, what is this “secular morality” I’m proposing?

Secular Morality

1. Our behavior can and does affect others. It also affects the environment and other living creatures.
2. The effects of behavior can be accurately and objectively determined to be either beneficial, detrimental, or neutral by asking three questions: What was the intent? What were the consequences? Were any one’s personal rights or values violated?
3. It is worth assessing the effects of our behaviors on others for the sake of creating codes of conduct which are beneficial to human beings. Subjective statement.

Dictionary definition of Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Items 1., 2., and 3., fit the dictionary definition of “a morality”. They define a Secular Morality as opposed to a Theistic Morality. This is a new way of looking at morality that has always existed. Once the effects of a particular behavior were determined to be either beneficial, detrimental, or neutral they could be plotted on a moral spectrum. Placement on the spectrum would be subjective but it would be impossible for beneficial effects/behavior to be placed anywhere on the immoral portions of the spectrum (and vice versa). The subjectivity would only come into play when determining HOW moral or immoral something was.

Objective Morality

Can objective morality exist? Yes. I believe objective morality can exist but only within Secular Morality. Why only within a Secular Morality? Consider these points:

1. Theistic morality does not ask the question: how does this behavior affect humanity? Instead it asks: is this behavior in line with God’s nature/will/word?
2. Theistic morality cannot directly access God to confirm which behaviors are in line with his will and which behaviors is not. This forces a practitioner of theistic morality to interpret Holy Scripture to decide the answer. Interpretation = subjective translation. Theistic morality is necessarily subjective morality.
3. Secular Morality does ask the question: how does this behavior affect humanity? It then proceeds to find the answer by directly communicating with the affected, by observing the situation surrounding the behavior/action which caused the effect, and finally determining whether or not that effect was beneficial, neutral, or detrimental.
4. Secular Morality accurately measures whether an action results in benefit, detriment, or neutrality by objectively observing and interacting within the real world. There are objective answers to the questions “did this help?” and “did this harm?” and practitioners of Secular Morality can determine what they are because they have access to the basis of their morality. Practitioners of Theistic Morality do not.
5. Objective Morality isn’t Absolute Morality. Absolute means that’s it, that’s the one, that’s the only answer and it’s non-negotiable. Absolutes are a true rarity and they have no place in discussions of morality.

Dictionary definition of Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Permit me to repeat the Dictionary definition of Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

So then Objective Morality defined must be: objective principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Are the principles of Secular Morality objective? Yes, they are. Does objective morality exist within a secular morality? Yes, I believe it does.

Objective Morality doesn’t mean one judgement for each category of behavior or activity. Objective Morality means that for each and every single behavior under the sun there’s a facts-based way to judge that behavior as either morally beneficial (good), morally neutral, or morally detrimental (bad).