What Do I Mean By Moral Experience?
Many people when they talk about moral experience are referring to all of the things that have happened to shape our morals over our lifetime…the experiences we have had.
That’s not what I’m talking about here. When I say moral experience, I’m talking about the experience of knowing what is right and what is wrong…a sense of morality. Whatever one believes about how moral knowledge came to be, there is no denying that we all have a sense of moral experience of some sort. Those who don’t are called sociopaths and you frequently find them locked up because of the wrong things they have done to others.
Moral Experience vs. Physical Experience
Why should we think any differently about our sense of morality (moral experience) than we do of our sense of the physical world (physical experience)? We have five senses with which we experience the physical world…sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Most of us trust that these senses allow us to accurately experience the world in which we live.
Why should our moral experience be considered any differently? I know that abusing children is wrong, the same as I know that the sky is blue or that candy is sweet, or that my 10 month old can be really loud… Why should I think the fact that my moral experience, or what I intuitively know to be right and wrong, is different than how I intuitively experience the physical world?
Sociobiology and Moral Experience
The sociobiological account of how morality originated says that our moral beliefs came from evolution and social conditioning. We’ve discussed why this isn’t a good explanation for morality in earlier posts, but that doesn’t mean how we understand morality is not affected by social conditioning.
The point here is, even if we have been conditioned to believe a certain way because of societal influence, that has nothing to do with whether or not the moral belief we have been conditioned to accept is true.
Moral values and duties may have always been the same, but you could accurately say that perceptions of some moral values and duties have evolved over time. Does this undermine the idea that God is necessary for morality? No, it just shows that fallible humans have discovered more about God’s moral revelation over time.
Isn’t that what science does? Pursue a gradual discovery about our physical world that changes and evolves with more study and more discoveries? As more is revealed, theories and perceptions change. Does this do anything to undermine the objectivity of the existence of our physical world? Instead it gives a fuller understanding of the objective world that is already there.
Morality and the Genetic Fallacy
Some will say that if sociobiological factors are the source of your belief, it proves the belief must be false…actually it’s that idea that is false.
The genetic fallacy in philosophy is the attempt to discredit a view by showing how someone came to believe that view due to invalid sources…but this is a logical fallacy. If I believe the world is round because I read it in a fortune cookie, it doesn’t mean that my belief is false. The world actually is round, and there are other ways to corroborate that fact.
The same things goes for objective morality and the existence of God. If I believe in objective morality because of social conditioning…and I believe in God exists because I grew up in a Christian home, that doesn’t mean that these beliefs are false.
Of course, some sources should be met with more skepticism than others, but how I come to believe in God and objective morality has nothing to do with whether or not morality is actually objective or whether or not God actually exists. Any evidence to the contrary must come from elsewhere if it’s to be taken seriously.
Moral Experience: A No-Confidence Vote
Atheists may say that if moral beliefs have been shaped by evolutionary and sociobiological pressures, they can’t be trusted because evolution focuses on survival, not truth.
There are two problems with this:
1) It assumes there is no God…if there is a God, it makes sense that He would provide us with fundamental true moral beliefs…either instilling them in us or guiding our understanding of them through an evolving process. As I already mentioned, we discussed in previous posts why the sociobiological explanation for morality is lacking. The existence of a God whose nature is where moral values arise makes a lot more sense.
2) It is self defeating. If there is no God and evolutionary development of morality can not be trusted (because its only focus is survival, not right and wrong)…then none of our beliefs can be trusted. On this view, all beliefs have developed from evolution and social conditioning so none of them could be trusted as true…which would include the very account of evolution and social conditioning we are discussing. So the idea of evolution and social conditioning taken to it’s logical conclusion is undermined because the view states that it cannot be trusted as true itself!
In conclusion, our moral experience alone can allow us rationally believe that objective moral values and duties exist, and sociobiological explanations can not explain away objective morality.
I think that’s enough about moral values, moral duties, moral experience, and morality, so next time we’ll start something else…
…something that is the most difficult question for Christians and the biggest, most legitimate reason non-Christians can give as to why they choose not to believe in the Christian God.
See you next time!
Comments on this entry are closed.