Deontological ethics approaches morality from a non-utilitarian standpoint. It’s probably best if you read the Britannica article and report back with your impressions:
I am aware of deontological ethics, and although I find the idea intuitively appealing, it’s hardly satisfying.
At least when I say “God said so” instead of “It is so” I have the hope that the Mysterious Word contains a meaning that I just don’t understand.
So let’s imagine what to you is a counter factual: that there is a universal moral law, and it’s derived from reason alone. If true, this implies that whatever God-derived moral law you currently think exists is actually false—potentially even evil—insofar as it contradicts the moral law of reason. You might be emotionally in the thrall of an evil masquerading as good, and demanding that what is good scratch an emotional itch. You might be worshipping a golden calf, to put it in biblical language.
If God presented you with a moral law that didn’t feel good or feel emotionally compelling, would you tell God “come back later when your morality is more interesting to me?” Or would you accept that moral law despite your misgivings, since after all it comes from God?
Presuming you would accept the moral law from God even if it didn’t hit you on a gut level, then why would you insist that moral law hit you on a gut level when it comes from reason?
In short, if you refuse to eat your morality salad unless it comes with a big squirt of emotional dressing, but you’ll eat the emotional dressing even if there’s no moral salad underneath, then I question whether you actually care about morality at all.
There are many such unappealing laws in the Bible, and I ignore most of them. There are many such unappealing laws I receive weekly at the mass, and I try my best to think about it honestly and decide whether to change my behavior or not.
In both those cases, whether or not I feel that I should change is an important factor in my decision whether to change or not, because it is an important indicator of whether the law is actually something I should take into account.
The very purpose of the priest is to show how important it is that I change, so that I change where needed. In return, I try my best to change what I believe I should change, as it is the rational thing to do.
I care about morality in two separate manners : -discerning what is worth changing in my behavior. -changing my behavior.
When I don’t feel emotionally about something, I try to use reason to discern whether I should feel about it (which is what I did here), with the intent to feel about whatever I intend to change. Iff my behaviour is to be changed, I wish to believe that my behaviour is to be changed. I cannot change radically about my faith if I don’t feel strongly about atheism.
So your original question was whether or not it’s possible, on a gut level, to believe that a secular moral world is possible.
Now, you are focused on whether it’s possible for you, personally, to feel morally inspired outside the context of your church. That is a separate question, having to do with the quirks of your psychology. You might have just as much trouble feeling morally inspired by, say, Hindu moral beliefs in a Hindu religious context, as you have in feeing that way about a secular morality.
It is entirely possible that you would never feel the same way about reason-based morality as you do about your church’s moral architecture. That doesn’t say much about whether reason-based morality is true, even less about whether it’s possible, and still less about whether it’s possible for somebody else to feel inspired by reason-based morality. As an atheist who feels inspired by a reason-based morality, I can tell you the latter is possible for some people.
I think that I would have a hard time feeling inspired by a Christian approach to moral inspiration, but it wouldn’t be completely impossible. So I’d suggest starting with a prior that it’s likely difficult, but not impossible, for you to have a genuine affiliation for secular morality. You just don’t know how to get there. And bear in mind that even if you can’t, you might just be attached to a false belief. Plenty of people are—cf astrology and that boyfriend who you know really loves you even though he hits you sometimes.
This says to me that you already accept the premise that it is possible that a godless moral world can exist, but feel that it would be unsatisfying if that possibility were true. I agree that it could be unsatisfying, but don’t see that as a basis for whether it is actually true or not.
Deontological ethics approaches morality from a non-utilitarian standpoint. It’s probably best if you read the Britannica article and report back with your impressions:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
I am aware of deontological ethics, and although I find the idea intuitively appealing, it’s hardly satisfying. At least when I say “God said so” instead of “It is so” I have the hope that the Mysterious Word contains a meaning that I just don’t understand.
So let’s imagine what to you is a counter factual: that there is a universal moral law, and it’s derived from reason alone. If true, this implies that whatever God-derived moral law you currently think exists is actually false—potentially even evil—insofar as it contradicts the moral law of reason. You might be emotionally in the thrall of an evil masquerading as good, and demanding that what is good scratch an emotional itch. You might be worshipping a golden calf, to put it in biblical language.
If God presented you with a moral law that didn’t feel good or feel emotionally compelling, would you tell God “come back later when your morality is more interesting to me?” Or would you accept that moral law despite your misgivings, since after all it comes from God?
Presuming you would accept the moral law from God even if it didn’t hit you on a gut level, then why would you insist that moral law hit you on a gut level when it comes from reason?
In short, if you refuse to eat your morality salad unless it comes with a big squirt of emotional dressing, but you’ll eat the emotional dressing even if there’s no moral salad underneath, then I question whether you actually care about morality at all.
There are many such unappealing laws in the Bible, and I ignore most of them.
There are many such unappealing laws I receive weekly at the mass, and I try my best to think about it honestly and decide whether to change my behavior or not.
In both those cases, whether or not I feel that I should change is an important factor in my decision whether to change or not, because it is an important indicator of whether the law is actually something I should take into account.
The very purpose of the priest is to show how important it is that I change, so that I change where needed. In return, I try my best to change what I believe I should change, as it is the rational thing to do.
I care about morality in two separate manners :
-discerning what is worth changing in my behavior.
-changing my behavior.
When I don’t feel emotionally about something, I try to use reason to discern whether I should feel about it (which is what I did here), with the intent to feel about whatever I intend to change.
Iff my behaviour is to be changed, I wish to believe that my behaviour is to be changed.
I cannot change radically about my faith if I don’t feel strongly about atheism.
So your original question was whether or not it’s possible, on a gut level, to believe that a secular moral world is possible.
Now, you are focused on whether it’s possible for you, personally, to feel morally inspired outside the context of your church. That is a separate question, having to do with the quirks of your psychology. You might have just as much trouble feeling morally inspired by, say, Hindu moral beliefs in a Hindu religious context, as you have in feeing that way about a secular morality.
It is entirely possible that you would never feel the same way about reason-based morality as you do about your church’s moral architecture. That doesn’t say much about whether reason-based morality is true, even less about whether it’s possible, and still less about whether it’s possible for somebody else to feel inspired by reason-based morality. As an atheist who feels inspired by a reason-based morality, I can tell you the latter is possible for some people.
I think that I would have a hard time feeling inspired by a Christian approach to moral inspiration, but it wouldn’t be completely impossible. So I’d suggest starting with a prior that it’s likely difficult, but not impossible, for you to have a genuine affiliation for secular morality. You just don’t know how to get there. And bear in mind that even if you can’t, you might just be attached to a false belief. Plenty of people are—cf astrology and that boyfriend who you know really loves you even though he hits you sometimes.
This says to me that you already accept the premise that it is possible that a godless moral world can exist, but feel that it would be unsatisfying if that possibility were true. I agree that it could be unsatisfying, but don’t see that as a basis for whether it is actually true or not.