Ayn Rand was probably not the first atheist to advocate for absolute morals or values (Objectivism), but I believe she was the first in modern times. I mention this to show the idea is not original to myself, although I did not borrow my explanation or justification from her. My beliefs are not exactly congruent with hers, but do have some commonality.
I am not presenting the philosophy of Objectivism, but have no objections if the thread twists that way.
It is my position that a person who reasons that there can be natural laws with no god, might equally reason that there can be natural moral laws, with no god.
By natural laws, I do not mean the man-made statement representing the properties, characteristics, action and reaction of material stuff, I mean the actual, naturally occurring, stuff that has regularity and predictability, that comes from an ordered cosmos, especially our little corner of it.
When Newton’s apple fell from the tree, it expressed a natural law, later known as gravity.
The natural law, existed before mankind’s understanding of it.
It is nice when reason has substantiation.
In the case of the existence of natural laws, science has taught itself how to test, measure, gauge, observe, experiment, and formulate accurate statements which represent the natural laws themselves.
The two most convincing aspects for a belief in absolute natural laws, is explanation, and predictability.
Good explanations have a high level of probability of leading to accurate predictions of future events, especially under controlled conditions.
This is very compelling substantiation to accepting the belief that there are absolute natural laws which govern the behavior of matter in a very predictable manner.
In the case of a belief in natural absolute moral laws, the substantiation is lacking.
There are no benchmarks, no accurate repeatability of results. No suitable experiments, or modeling.
There is however anecdotal evidence.
There are many things which are nearly universal in their being taboo for moral reasons.
Harm to innocent young children, as an example. Of course there have been cultures or times when certain harm to certain children has been considered acceptable. There is good reason to believe these actions could be immoral, and those who commit these acts, receive the consequences in their own life, or in their progeny.
The good reason being the same as the good reason for first accepting natural material laws; for an orderly existence of sentient beings, right along side an orderly existence of nonliving material.
I read once that mankind has made as much scientific advancements in the last 50 years, as it had in the whole history of mankind up to that point. Someone may have a more accurate or current quote on that.
The point is, we’ve only just begun.
I have been told by those who know more about such things than myself, that science does not have to include experimentation.
I have faith in science that one day it will be able to demonstrate substantial evidence to show that there are absolute moral laws.
In the case of absolute natural material laws, we know that the property of substances can change physical form, and the natural laws sometimes change with them. Some compounds are stable as a solid, but very volatile as a liquid or gas.
Solid granite does not react to the elements of nature the same as powdered granite. It demonstrates through its existence, different natural laws, depending on the form.
It may be the same with early man compared to recent man.
What I’m getting at, is that what is sometimes referred to as situational morals, might be an expression of the absolute natural moral laws, but with different variables.
The absolute commandment of Thou shalt not steal, may in fact be a gross over simplification of the naturally occurring moral laws, which distinguishes or recognizes variables that permit stealing, under certain conditions.
If all of this is true, it begs the questions, How are we to discover these absolute natural moral laws?
The answer is simple, we try to find them. The natural material laws did not jump out at us, we had to find or discover them.
I would say that in any situation in which a moral decision must be made, the individual is capable of realizing the correct moral action, and accepting to do it, or to violate it.
I would admit that many individuals are not interested in the correct moral action, have no interest in it, and may never consider it as a possible course of action. This is not evidence it is not there.
I am not presenting the philosophy of Objectivism, but have no objections if the thread twists that way.
It is my position that a person who reasons that there can be natural laws with no god, might equally reason that there can be natural moral laws, with no god.
By natural laws, I do not mean the man-made statement representing the properties, characteristics, action and reaction of material stuff, I mean the actual, naturally occurring, stuff that has regularity and predictability, that comes from an ordered cosmos, especially our little corner of it.
When Newton’s apple fell from the tree, it expressed a natural law, later known as gravity.
The natural law, existed before mankind’s understanding of it.
It is nice when reason has substantiation.
In the case of the existence of natural laws, science has taught itself how to test, measure, gauge, observe, experiment, and formulate accurate statements which represent the natural laws themselves.
The two most convincing aspects for a belief in absolute natural laws, is explanation, and predictability.
Good explanations have a high level of probability of leading to accurate predictions of future events, especially under controlled conditions.
This is very compelling substantiation to accepting the belief that there are absolute natural laws which govern the behavior of matter in a very predictable manner.
In the case of a belief in natural absolute moral laws, the substantiation is lacking.
There are no benchmarks, no accurate repeatability of results. No suitable experiments, or modeling.
There is however anecdotal evidence.
There are many things which are nearly universal in their being taboo for moral reasons.
Harm to innocent young children, as an example. Of course there have been cultures or times when certain harm to certain children has been considered acceptable. There is good reason to believe these actions could be immoral, and those who commit these acts, receive the consequences in their own life, or in their progeny.
The good reason being the same as the good reason for first accepting natural material laws; for an orderly existence of sentient beings, right along side an orderly existence of nonliving material.
I read once that mankind has made as much scientific advancements in the last 50 years, as it had in the whole history of mankind up to that point. Someone may have a more accurate or current quote on that.
The point is, we’ve only just begun.
I have been told by those who know more about such things than myself, that science does not have to include experimentation.
I have faith in science that one day it will be able to demonstrate substantial evidence to show that there are absolute moral laws.
In the case of absolute natural material laws, we know that the property of substances can change physical form, and the natural laws sometimes change with them. Some compounds are stable as a solid, but very volatile as a liquid or gas.
Solid granite does not react to the elements of nature the same as powdered granite. It demonstrates through its existence, different natural laws, depending on the form.
It may be the same with early man compared to recent man.
What I’m getting at, is that what is sometimes referred to as situational morals, might be an expression of the absolute natural moral laws, but with different variables.
The absolute commandment of Thou shalt not steal, may in fact be a gross over simplification of the naturally occurring moral laws, which distinguishes or recognizes variables that permit stealing, under certain conditions.
If all of this is true, it begs the questions, How are we to discover these absolute natural moral laws?
The answer is simple, we try to find them. The natural material laws did not jump out at us, we had to find or discover them.
I would say that in any situation in which a moral decision must be made, the individual is capable of realizing the correct moral action, and accepting to do it, or to violate it.
I would admit that many individuals are not interested in the correct moral action, have no interest in it, and may never consider it as a possible course of action. This is not evidence it is not there.
