The Contribution of Atheists to Moral Philosophy and the Practice of Morality

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam 6 March 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Al-Fârâbî Even Cast Doubts On The Character Of Revealed Religions And Opines That The Prophets And The Revealed Religions Articulate The Same Insights That Philosophers Express In Their Teachings. The Prophets Simply Use The Method Of Symbolization To Make This Wisdom More Approachable To Ordinary People. In His Opinion, Therefore, The Prophets Were Philosophers, Who Used The Framework Of Religion To Make Their Ideas Acceptable To The Common Man. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In my article: The Progression from Religious Morality to Secular Laws and the Danger of Regression of Religious Morality into Bestiality,, I have discussed the contribution of the moral philosophers in taking descriptive morality from religion and making it normative. They did this by taking into account empirical proof of the benefits to society from practising the moral code as a religious duty for thousands of years, and its importance in the survival and propagation of the species. They helped make descriptive morality become acceptable on a rational basis by explaining the underlying principle of every moral rule which then became the accepted norm on a rational basis. For example, the golden rule in every religion is the reciprocity rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Or “One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated”. The atheist philosopher Immanuel Kant universalized it by rephrasing it as “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” and called it the supreme principle of morality. In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do it. Many of these philosophers were atheists, and indeed their motivation stemmed from trying to make religion irrelevant. This is not some modern phenomenon but even the 11th-century Muslim philosophers and before that, the Greek philosophers were engaged in the same. Al-Fârâbî even cast doubts on the character of revealed religions and opines that the Prophets and the revealed religions articulate the same insights that philosophers express in their teachings. The prophets simply use the method of symbolization to make this wisdom more approachable to ordinary people. In his opinion, therefore, the Prophets were philosophers, who used the framework of religion to make their ideas acceptable to the common man. As De Bono would say, every valued creative idea has to necessarily be logical in hindsight. If it were not so, we would reject it as without value. As the creative idea is logical in hindsight, we are tempted to think that it should be equally accessible to logic in foresight. This need not be so. What chance does an ant on the trunk of a tree have of reaching a specified leaf? At every branch, the chances diminish. In an average tree, the chances are one in eight thousand. Now if we have an ant sitting on a leaf what are the chances of reaching the trunk of the tree? There is no forward branching in the journey so the chances are one hundred per cent. It is exactly the same with creative ideas. Once the idea has been reached then it is logical and obvious in hindsight. But reaching the idea is a different matter. De Bono’s argument covers the creative ideas of human beings which immediately appear logical in hindsight. Moral principles are not like that. They do not immediately become logical in hindsight but take a very long time of practising them for their benefits to become clear. Each principle is also counterintuitive as it is against the nature of man. It is a fact that no moral precept has come out of secular thinking and all moral precepts have come from only Religion. One just has to read the history of moral philosophy starting from 600 BCE to date and the works of every great moral philosopher to confirm this. Or one has simply to go through the arguments on any moral issue to understand how impossible it is to agree on anything to do with morality, left to ourselves. We cannot even agree on a definition of terrorism simply because any workable and reasonable definition makes every nation a state sponsor or supporter of terrorism. So, why is it that when almost everyone lies and cheats if the temptation is high and the probability of getting caught low, ill-treats and oppresses weaker people at least to the extent of bargaining with them their wages or price of the goods and services they sell, do not feel the same pain when people from among the “enemy” suffer a calamity, and yet nobody questions the simple moral rules of do not lie, cheat, oppress, or kill? Now you can imagine the difficulty the same people would have had accepting these same rules if the rules did not exist. So, how did these rules come to be accepted universally? That is the supreme achievement of religion. The basic moral rules from religion have permeated society and come to be known as the “natural law” and are equally accepted and followed by the theists and the atheists. The contribution of moral philosophers in making morality normative must be acknowledged as a great achievement of humans even though it may have been motivated by atheist tendencies. As far as moral tendencies and sensitivity are concerned, many atheists are superior to the majority of theists. Being rational in their approach, and with moral precepts learnt early in their childhood from their parents and environment which helped internalise these to become instinctive, they are less likely to be misled by religious bigots into bestiality. Great literature has contributed more to sensitizing us to human suffering, pain, oppression, discrimination based on colour, gender, social position etc. and in turn promoting moral behaviour than any religion. Many of the authors may have been morally sensitive atheists. Poets are known to be particularly sensitive to human suffering and pain and almost every Urdu poet is an atheist. However, atheism can cause a complete collapse of all moral values. Moral relativism is the small crack through which a wedge could be driven to bring down the moral edifice. The thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons is the proverbial wedge. Consider The Following Story from Jonathan Haidt’s Book ‘The Happiness Hypothesis’ “Julie and Mark are sister and brother. They are travelling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love but decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other.” Do you think it is acceptable for two consenting adults, who happen to be siblings, to make love? Haidt goes on to argue that there is no valid rational argument against it since Julie is unlikely to conceive, their relationship is likely to become closer, the act is kept secret, and they are unlikely to repeat it. Does not everything start in small and safe ways and eventually become an epidemic? The absolute law of morality or the categorical imperative, therefore, has value. Morality based on rational thinking cannot take us beyond acting out of the hypothetical imperative. The dangers of moral relativism are underestimated. Children outgrow their incestual and homosexual urges and are helped in no small way by the sexual mores of society and religion-based taboos surrounding incest and homosexuality. Remove these and we already see homosexuality becoming far too common. This is not because what was hidden earlier is now coming out into the open, but a case of many who otherwise may have reoriented themselves after experiencing the childhood urges, are now indulging in it as it is no longer considered immoral. It is a matter of time before incest becomes both common and acceptable. The population growth rate of the ‘developed world’ is below maintenance levels. With homosexuality and incest becoming common, it can reach dangerously low levels and societies can self-destruct. Moreover, without the social and religious taboo on incest, the home ceases to be a haven safe from sexual predators. The cases of psychological damage caused by sexual abuse of children and adolescents are far too serious and too many to allow us to be complacent. Philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche declared that God is dead. If God is dead, then morality is a matter of personal choice. The root of a person’s denial of God is often also the root of his moral depravity. It is far too uncomfortable for a morally depraved person to believe in God. It causes too much cognitive dissonance which is painful. What Has Psychology To Tell Us About Human Nature? Dan Baston at the University of Kansas devised a clever study to make people make moral choices unobserved, and his findings are that 90% of people are moral hypocrites and are unaware of it. They will cheat if they think that they can get away with it. My guess is that more than 99% fall in this category and some are simply less enterprising and need more time to feel comfortable enough in a new environment (such as provided by the test), to start cheating. Religion Based Morality Religion promotes absolute transcendental values. The relativity of values has led to vulgarity and obscenity, to the widespread use of alcohol and of drug addiction, to making homosexual relations common, and to the breaking down of barriers for incest. “Human dignity and the nobility of character are based upon permanence and stability in the moral order.” Atheists are oblivious to religion as the source of all original moral precepts which have shaped the notions of morality in their society and in themselves. Although there are outward signs of decline in religion, notions of morality derived from religion still govern the lives of people. Moral precepts and all great ideas are logical in hindsight. These ideas are therefore accepted by all. An atheist may reject religion but he will not reject good moral precepts irrespective of their origin. Because these ideas have become self-evident in hindsight, people tend to think that these ideas have always been there or are a result of human thinking. Moral precepts owe nothing to philosophy or literature although both have contributed handsomely to promoting religious morality. The earliest writers and philosophers have openly used religious language and symbolism. For example, Shakespeare while talking about the quality of mercy as an attribute of God Himself. Religion besides giving us transcendental moral values has inspired great art, literature, music and architecture and has undoubtedly been a great civilizing influence. It is also recognised that many of the great artists, writers, poets, musicians and architects may have been atheists acting under moral impulses while being oblivious to the source of all moral principles. Religion has undeniably had a civilizing influence on society and without it, we would have remained barbarians. The weakening of the influence of religion and of absolute moral values that go with it, and the growing trend of moral relativism, will lead us into an enlightened form of barbarianism but barbarianism nevertheless. Technology may help us with surveillance and to ensure compliance with manmade laws, but can it be a substitute for voluntary compliance with absolute ethical and moral values, to the inner peace and serenity that goes with it, and the higher meaning it gives to life? There is a good side to atheists which has contributed immensely to promoting moral values and there is a destructive part which is bent upon destroying the very foundations of morality. There is a good side to religion which make the sincere followers who are also sensitized by philosophy and great literature to be among the best and there are the unthinking bigots who have made immoral principles their religion and have become a threat to peace and harmony. Good people must learn to work together, and espouse good causes rather than be at loggerheads with each other. While atheists can excel in giving voice to the oppressed, it is only the theists who excel in the practice of morality simply because their threshold for resisting pain and suffering while espousing moral causes is far greater than that of atheists. This is because for them their values are absolute and not negotiable. The atheists are more pragmatic and have a point beyond which they will not go for their values. This is why it would be difficult to find among the atheists a counterpart to Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King. ----- A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He has spent years studying Quran in-depth and made seminal contributions to its interpretation. URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/atheists-moral-philosophy-practice-morality/d/129254 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism