From Enki
David Bentley Hart, in his chapter 'Bliss' from his book "The Experience of God" says this.
“if we should conclude that there is no such thing as real goodness, we can certainly cease to behave in a spirit of charity, or to feel any sense of moral responsibility towards others.” In other words, he is saying that if we really do not believe in objective absolutes, which have their basis in a metaphysical objective reality, then we are incapable of moral feelings, thoughts and actions.
However, so his argument goes, by the very fact that we perceive the good and the bad, and by trying to follow the good, we inevitably believe in moral absolutes which come from this objective morality. Having your cake and eating it come to my mind!
My answer to this would be as follows:
I function according to the way nature has made me.
So, even though I know that all atoms are virtually composed of space, when I sit down, I expect and feel the material solidity of what I am sitting on. This is the way nature allows me to function in the natural world I inhabit.
Similarly, I suggest that everything I do and think is determined by cause and effect (leaving aside quantum mechanics, which may be responsible for a random element)) so that I cannot make total free will decisions. However, this does not stop me functioning in the natural world under what I consider to be the illusion of free will, because this is the way that nature intended me to act. In essence, the fact that I live my life as if free will existed is not evidence that it actually does.
In exactly the same way, I can happily maintain no actual belief in an objective morality, but act quite naturally as if I did, because this is the way I was made to function. This is my answer to Hart’s point that if we function as if morality has some objective reality, we must therefore, inescapably, believe that it has. Like most other people, I make what I consider to be moral decisions all the time and yet I have no underlying belief that morality is anything but a human concept conditional only on the fact that there are humans around to portray and act upon such attributes. The fact that I live my life as if some sort of morality actually existed is not evidence that it actually does.
I actually see morality as a human construct which attempts to deal with all manner of situations which have no intrinsic moral value in themselves. The morality we feel is based upon the need for social cohesion, driven by the qualities of empathy, compassion and altruism and and fashioned by culture, nurture and rationality. I would suggest that my personal morals are a result of these, and capable of wide interpretation given any particular 'moral' situation. I may well be ‘wrong’ on any particular instance according to others who may take a contrary and opposing view. Indeed I may even change my moral stance if I am convinced that I should do so. I try to follow what I think is reasonable 'moral' behaviour according to the view of morality that I have described.
I would suggest, that this is the way evolution has made us in order to maintain the viability of our species. If drinking tea had any strong emotional overtones such that we felt our species threatened by those who do not drink tea, then, I suggest, drinking tea would then become a clear moral issue.
For myself, ideally, when I say something is wrong, my first reaction is of something which offends my nature. The wrongness I feel might take the form of disapproval, disgust, abhorrence, even fear, depending upon the situation. I then try to assess the wrongness of the situation according to my values,( which may well have their origin in my culture and my upbringing). in as rational a way as possible(e.g. by trying to ascertain as many facts regarding the situation as possible or by trying to consider in as level headed a way as possible the points of view of others.) The result of all this is something which I would call my moral opinion.
