My Search for a moral foundation

The Need for a Foundation for Morality

A fundamental task for anyone seeking to live a good life is establishing the basis for the moral code they choose to live by. There is no certain answer. There are many theories, but all have weaknesses that introduce uncertainty. However, I believe there is a solid basis for morality that withstands rigorous scrutiny and can work for most people.

Why is having a foundation for morality important? Isn’t simply having a moral code that feels right and seems to work enough? In many cases, it may. However, I want a higher standard than merely believing or accepting something from an authority I trust. I want to be confident in defending my moral choices and feel they are true enough to warrant sacrifice.

Having a foundation for morality is also necessary when dealing with complex moral questions where basic standards seem inadequate, or sometimes contradictory. In these cases, I need to go beyond broad moral guidelines and determine what actions are morally just in this particular situation. I need more rigor for deciding right and wrong.

In this essay, I argue that reason, when applied rigorously and informed by evidence and experience, is the most effective practical foundation for morality. As Nietzsche noted, the Enlightenment killed God, which eliminated the most accepted basis for morality. But reason, the primary alternative, has its problems as a reliable arbiter of right and wrong. I sort through various ideas to find an approach that I find satisfactory and workable. It rests on human flourishing and the best of the reason-based moral philosophies.

I have always had an innate sense of what is right and wrong. We are likely born with a basic moral framework. The experience of growing up refined these basic moral inclinations. Adult life experience added richer, and often painful, moral lessons. I have also read extensively about moral philosophy and the major schools, including virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology.

But I continued to feel uneasy about whether I had a solid foundation for my beliefs. It is one thing to adopt a moral code. It is much more challenging to explain why your moral code is correct and better than the alternatives. I wasn’t sure I could argue convincingly why I had chosen one set of moral rules over another. My ethical beliefs felt right, but could they withstand harsh scrutiny?

Moral relativism exacerbated my unease. I saw how moral codes could have their roots in a culture and even individual circumstances. But I rejected the idea that all cultures and their morals were equally valid. That seemed to be too fluid to be practical for making life choices. There were too many instances where I strongly disagreed with the moral codes of a particular culture. They couldn’t all be equally valid. Furthermore, moral relativism provides no means or evaluation criteria for finding common ground between people. A certain level of moral agreement is necessary for societies to function effectively.

Finally, while I approach morality from a secular perspective, I found that my core values frequently align with those whose morality is rooted in a belief in God. We arrived at our beliefs about right and wrong through different paths. Yet we arrived at about the same place. How could this be? Is there any way to explain this convergence?

For all these reasons, a deeper examination of the possible foundations for morality was necessary for my peace of mind.

Uncertainty in Reason and God as Foundations for Morality.

There are two primary ways to justify rules for what is right and wrong. One is reason. The other is the will of God. Each has some significant problems.

Traditionally, ethical codes came, directly or indirectly, from God. Different mechanisms may be at work in revealing the rules. For some, the direct word of God, conveyed through divine revelation, is the source. For others, the guidance on how to live is more nuanced. But it is still grounded in a belief in God, an understanding that God wants people to live a certain way, and aided by religious texts, teachings, and prayer. Regardless of the specific means for understanding God’s guidance, God is at the center of most religious moral systems.

There are several problems with the God centered approach. There is the question of whether God chose moral codes because they are good, or whether they are good because God chose them. Then there are the differing interpretations of God’s guidance that come from the various religions. There can be significant uncertainty, within and between religions, about how God intends us to act. Different people using the same religious sources and methods can reach opposing moral conclusions. These religious interpretations have been substantial enough to cause conflict and war. Those differences also feed skepticism.

The alternative is to determine morality independently of God. Since the Enlightenment, science, reason, experience, and other methods have gained and perhaps surpassed the word of God in establishing rules and principles to live by. Different moral systems and schools of moral philosophy emerged to define and justify morals.

These reason-based approaches also have problems. They, too, can produce different answers. No particular school has been able to establish the moral dominance once held by the major Christian religions in the West. Additionally, many of these schools of thought lack an effective means for communicating and implementing their rules. The religious approach, at least, has churches and established documents such as the Bible. It is unclear to me how these moral systems teach new generations right from wrong without a formal, stable mechanism.

Moral relativism further confuses the search for a foundation for morality. It, in effect, rejects both reason and God as a foundation for morality. Morality is a product of culture and circumstance. Some moral relativists assert that there is no objective basis for morality. One set of values is no better than another. There is no basis for criticizing an ethical system or ascertaining its value when you deny any objective basis for morality.

The confusion caused by the weaknesses of these approaches is both a social and individual problem. It is one of the negative consequences of the Enlightenment. It is hard to build social cohesion when people live by different rules. A lack of a widely held moral code erodes the trust and stability needed for people to work cooperatively. How can you trust your neighbor if you are unsure what moral values they have and how they will behave? Absent common fundamental values, only laws provide a standard set of rules. But even laws are difficult to enforce if not backed up by shared values.

Reason and Convergence

I have adopted a rigorous application of reason, backed up by evidence from human experience, as a reliable and useful foundation for morality. I can vigorously defend a carefully selected system for moral reasoning and its practical application. There are weaknesses and criticisms, of course. But they are far fewer than those of its alternatives. It is an approach sufficient for finding common moral ground among diverse groups.

As an atheist, I cannot accept a morality that is justified solely on the will of God. However, some theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, argue that people can arrive at moral codes through reason. Divine revelation is not necessary for basic morality, although it may be necessary for salvation. As I find that many of my morals align with religious teachings, particularly those of Christianity, I draw comfort from the thoughts of Aquinas. My pursuit of the best moral reasoning will work even though I do not believe in God.

A British philosopher, Derek Parfit (1942-2017), spent much of his career working on the question of the objective basis for morality. His book, “On What Matters,” is a modern classic. He argues that there is an objective basis for moral codes. The truth of moral principles is discoverable through reason.

Parfit’s approach relies on applying three primary systems of morality reasoning:

1. Rule-based consequentialism. We should act according to rules that, if generally followed, would lead to the best outcomes. This is a variant of utilitarianism which addresses some of the weaknesses of act utilitarianism. It suggests adopting general rules that benefit individuals and society rather than evaluating each specific act. This approach also tends to be more respectful of individual rights than other versions of utilitarianism.
2. Kantian deontology. We should act only on principles that everyone could reasonably will to be universal law. This is Kant’s categorical imperative. Stated another way, we should never treat others solely as a means to our own ends, but rather as ends in themselves. It is the best single moral rule I have found.
3. Contractualism. We should act on principles that no one could reasonably reject. This theory is built on whether rational people could reasonably object to a general principle of behavior. If anyone can reasonably object, then it is not moral.

His highly respected work recognizes that these basic schools of moral philosophy tend to converge on similar moral guidance. We can arrive at moral truths by applying the reasoning advocated in these three approaches in combination. A good moral principle should pass all three tests. That convergence suggests we have an objectively moral truth. With convergence, reasonable people, dispassionately applying these well-developed systems for moral reasoning, will likely arrive at the same or similar answers to moral questions.

I find Parfit’s approach and the idea of convergence to be powerful. It reflects my own experience working through tough moral situations. Earlier in life, I found it hard to settle on one method, such as deontology, as my primary guide. Each system I studied had its appeal but also its flaws. By considering several moral philosophies, I made more progress in good moral decisionmaking. I often expand the systems I considered. For example, I often include ideas from the virtue ethics of Aristotle and the Stoics.

Parfit also observes that the spiritually based morality of the Judeo-Christian religions tends to arrive at similar moral principles, although he does not argue that spirituality is an equally valid path to moral truth. To me, the convergence suggests that many religious moral rules are inherently good, independent of God. If God wants us to follow them, it is because they are logically good, not simply because he says so. Parfit’s observation also matches my experience of arriving at, through reasoning, moral principles similar to those of my Christian friends. It is also in line with some theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, as noted earlier.

Thriving and Morality

I have long believed that human thriving should be a primary goal for living. There is a long history behind this idea, dating back to Aristotle. But how does this fit with the approach suggested by Parfit?

It seems that morality should further human thriving or flourishing. I think that one of the most effective ways to evaluate moral decisions is to examine the impact or contribution of different choices on human flourishing. An action is good if you can provide convincing arguments and evidence that it promotes human thriving, both individually and collectively. Can there be a moral code that is worth following that does not further human well-being?

Parfit’s system supports human flourishing. This idea aligns closely with the rule-based consequentialism, where one considers the outcome of following specific moral rules. Even Kant, who tied morality to duty rather than consequence, saw happiness as a legitimate human goal. And following his moral rules indirectly supports flourishing. Happiness may not be the sole objective of a robust moral system, but it is certainly an important component.

A workable definition of well-being and human flourishing is necessary for this line of reasoning to work. If no one agrees on a practical definition of well-being, then this approach becomes meaningless, and moral choices are reduced to mere matters of personal preference. In another essay, I have laid out my definition of thriving in more detail. Simply stated, well-being applies to individuals and society. The individual perspective is essential, but it has to be balanced with what is vital for the community. Well-being includes physical and material conditions (health, shelter, food). Equally important is realizing human potential – living meaningful, fulfilling lives. All this is consistent with the views of many who have written on human happiness and thriving.

It is easy to poke holes in any moral system by bringing up extreme examples. The existence of ethical dilemmas (e.g., the trolley problem) shows that any system has its limits. However, I am not aiming for an ironclad system or one that is routinely unambiguous. We are humans, after all, and this is unrealistic. Nevertheless, as a foundational approach that is practical and works well most of the time, it seems to pass the test. It provides a way for most rational people to reach the same or nearly the same conclusion when conducting the same moral analysis.

The Messiness of Moral Reasoning

Adopting the moral groundwork I favor does not provide instant moral clarity. The world is exceptionally complex, and human reasoning can be flawed. Making difficult moral decisions is often challenging. Yes, there are some simple rules we don’t have to think hard about, such as prohibitions against lying, stealing, and murder. However, even here, one can imagine situations that require in-depth moral reasoning.

Many moral decisions are simple, and we can act out of habit and instinct. But my experience is that there are critical moral decisions where there is no immediately apparent correct answer. These decisions involved applying several different moral principles to the particular situation. Often, there are tradeoffs. There is always uncertainty and a lack of knowledge. I yearn for straightforward, black-and-white rules that would simplify my decisions. That is not the world we live in. Making tough ethical decisions will often be messy and challenging regardless of one’s grounding in moral reasoning.

Fortunately, a reason-based moral system opens the door for learning, both individually and as a society. Our environment is constantly changing, and we are rapidly gaining knowledge of the world and how it operates. Moral codes that further human flourishing must account for the environment in which people live.

For example, the morality of infanticide looks different if you are in a small tribe facing annihilation through starvation compared to a world with abundant food. Infanticide today would violate nearly every moral rule I can imagine. Yet, at some distant time in our past, one could have decided differently. After all, you cannot thrive if you aren’t around.

Similarly, a society existing in harsh conditions may put more emphasis on morals and values related to group loyalty and discipline. You can’t afford to have people not pulling their weight and sticking together. Societies in favorable environments with abundant resources may prioritize individual freedom over group cohesion.

Western cultural norms have evolved. Slavery was once accepted as moral. It was considered natural even among the high-minded Greeks. The change over time in acceptable and unacceptable behavior between men and women could hardly be starker. The list of positive moral changes over the last several millennia is long.

These changes extend beyond merely social norms and politics. There are many examples of fundamental changes in the moral codes endorsed by organized religions. The Protestant Reformation introduced significant changes in the understanding of sin and its consequences for immoral behavior. Many religions have changed their moral codes regarding relations between men and women, homosexuality, and birth control. I believe many of these changes are driven by environmental circumstances. The environment changed, and the benefits of certain behaviors for individuals and society changed (some became less desirable, while others became more so), and secular and religious codes changed accordingly.

The complexity of moral reasoning and the effects of a changing environment can be unnerving. It can make moral decisions seem too fluid. But I am willing to pay that price to have the ability to learn and adapt. That is a big advantage of a moral system grounded in rigorous moral reasoning. It can improve with learning and experience while not being susceptible to whim and fashion.

An Antidote to Moral Relativism

I want to avoid moral relativism in some of its forms. Descriptive relativism observes that morals vary between cultures. Normative relativists argue that we should tolerate cultural differences in morality. Individual relativists say that the values and morals of each culture are equally valid and that there is no objective basis for determining which culture’s morality is superior to another’s. Some take this idea to an extreme where each person can formulate their equally valid moral code.

I am comfortable with the idea that some moral codes are a product of culture. Earlier, I argued that morality should adapt to learning and circumstances, albeit carefully and through reason. However, I strongly reject individual relativism that denies an objective basis for morality. That makes it impossible to determine if one moral code is better than another. It does not facilitate moral progress and does not promote human flourishing broadly. It is destructive to the social cohesion necessary for societies to function effectively. This “anything goes” branch of moral relativism is a dangerous idea akin to nihilism. It can lead to numerous adverse outcomes and harm. Anarchy could result as each person adopts their own, supposedly equally valid, morality.

It can be easy to fall into relativistic thinking. One can start to think that because moral reasoning is messy and morals can change over time, deciding what is ethical is just a matter of personal preference. It has happened to me. For anything you want to do, you can find some culture that allows or condones it. Many times I have heard the justification “In (some culture or country) this practice is allowed, so it is ok for me to do it.” There is a related view that any activity between consenting adults is morally acceptable. This always struck me as the lowest possible bar for moral action, which assumes the ability to completely isolate the actions of consenting individuals from their impacts on others.

A reason-based approach to establishing moral principles is an antidote to moral relativism. With the rigorous application of reason, using at a minimum the three approaches recommended by Parfit, you can provide objective tests for what is right and wrong and what moral codes are preferable to others. You can show that a specific action can fail one or more of the ethical reasoning tests. It is something that reasonable people can work through systematically and generally agree. Reason provides us with the tools to move toward morality that is widely accepted. Parfit was adamant in his opposition to moral relativism, which was in part the impetus for his work. His solution provides a clear beacon to guide us through treacherous moral waters.

Practical Guidance

I conclude with a few thoughts on how to apply moral reasoning in a practical sense in daily life. Separating right from wrong and formulating the moral rules you want to live by is a lifelong pursuit. It requires practice and often humility, as you will sometimes get it wrong. But these steps seem to work for me.

1. Begin with virtue as your foundation. Acting in accordance with the virtues described by Aristotle, the Stoics, and others generally puts a person on the right course. Although it is not as rigorous as some other moral tests, it offers a valuable framework for informed action. You will make fewer moral mistakes if you are at least trying to be virtuous.
2. Emphasize human thriving and well-being. Adopt the rules that, if generally followed, will further your happiness and the happiness of others. This is the spirit of the rule-based consequentialism recommended by Parfit. It requires looking well beyond narrow personal happiness.
3. Apply Kant’s categorical imperative. You should act only according to principles that you would will to become universal laws. Only do things that you’d want everyone doing in similar circumstances.

A good moral code should work in practice, not just in theory. Does your moral code produce a society where you and others flourish? How strong is the logic and reasoning linking moral behavior and human thriving? Are your moral decisions consistent with virtue? These are all good questions to ask ourselves when making ethical choices.

There is no easy way to moral clarity and a solid framework for ethics. But framing the issue as the rigorous application of reason and evidence makes the most sense to me. The goal of human flourishing helps focus the logic and evidence. It is not perfect or simple. There will always be moral dilemmas. But it is a strong alternative to the destructive versions of moral relativism. It can help one be more confident of moral decisions and help build a common moral framework with our community.