Exploring New Atheism, Moral Realism, and Animal Rights
Written on
Chapter 1: The New Atheism Perspective
The modern wave of secularism, represented by figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens—often labeled as "New Atheists"—advocates for a rational and scientific approach to address crucial moral dilemmas. These thinkers typically dismiss the idea of independent moral truths and reject the concept of absolute moral rules, arguing that morality influenced by religious or spiritual beliefs should be discarded.
In this discussion, I aim to explore how this viewpoint, while not entirely novel, impacts our understanding of animal rights. Recently, I've observed a surge in advocates who assert that animal rights can be firmly established on rationality and science alone, thus dismissing the existence of independent moral truths or the idea of actions being inherently wrong.
It’s essential to clarify that rejecting the notion that scientific rationality can provide insights into morality does not compel one to accept supernatural beliefs or fall into moral relativism. One can embrace concepts of moral realism or acknowledge the principle of nonviolence as a moral truth without subscribing to the belief in a creator deity or an afterlife. The framing of this debate often misleadingly presents a dichotomy: if one rejects relativism or subjectivism, they must either adopt supernatural beliefs or adhere strictly to scientific rationality. This is a false dichotomy.
Section 1.1: Challenging the Dichotomy
Terry Eagleton, in his critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion, notes that Dawkins often conflates religion with fundamentalism, neglecting the nuances in moral discourse. Dawkins tends to associate rule-based morality with religion, equating it to religious fundamentalism.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins acknowledges Kant's ideas but suggests that distinguishing between deontological ethics and moral absolutism is unnecessary for a discussion centered on religion. He asserts that while not all absolutism is religiously derived, justifying absolutist morals beyond religious grounds is challenging. I contend that a form of moral realism is necessary to establish the absolute moral standards I consider vital—like the wrongness of exploiting vulnerable beings, committing acts of rape, or engaging in animal exploitation. These standards do not require a religious foundation.
The first video, "Atheists Can't Justify Caring About Animals!" examines the rationale behind animal rights advocacy from a secular perspective, challenging common beliefs in the New Atheist framework.
Section 1.2: The Nature of Moral Disagreement
Dawkins contrasts deontologists with consequentialists, suggesting that the latter possess a more flexible approach to moral issues. He attempts to depict consequentialist theories, like utilitarianism, as less prone to the absolutism of religious fundamentalism than rights-based theories. This characterization resonates with animal welfare advocates who often categorize animal rights supporters as "fundamentalists."
Nevertheless, the ongoing debate is not merely about preferring utilitarianism over jihadism. It raises critical questions about the validity of objective moral truths or absolute standards that exist independently of scientific rationality. This debate persists even if we exclude religious extremists from the equation.
The focus now shifts to those who advocate for moral realism—the belief that moral statements hold truth claims that can be evaluated as true or false. For instance, a moral realist would assert that "slavery is wrong" is akin to asserting "the chair is brown," both purporting to convey factual information. Moral realism posits that moral truths exist independently of personal perspectives.
The second video, "Moral Disagreement and Moral Realism," delves into the complexities of moral disagreements and the implications of moral realism in contemporary ethical discussions.
Chapter 2: Rationality and Moral Truth
Rationality pertains to the alignment of means with ends. To label someone as irrational typically implies they are pursuing inappropriate means for a particular goal. Furthermore, rationality involves the coherence of beliefs—if one believes "if X then Y" and also believes "X," then one should logically accept "Y."
However, the assertion that "we ought to be rational" inherently involves normative claims that are not subject to proof. The question arises: why should we subscribe to rationality in the first place? Such foundational claims cannot be substantiated in the same manner as mathematical axioms; they must be accepted as true.
The belief that we ought to rationally select means conducive to our ends lacks the capacity to dictate which ends we ought to value or which beliefs we ought to hold. Rationality cannot determine whether humanity is a blight on the planet or whether we have a responsibility to care for future generations.
In conclusion, the choice of moral ends and beliefs transcends rationality. New Atheists like Hitchens and Harris, along with Chris Hedges, may all possess rational thought, yet they diverge significantly in their moral convictions.
Chapter 3: A Revolution of the Heart
To end animal exploitation, we must pursue what I term a "revolution of the heart." This entails rejecting ideologies of domination—both secular and religious—that allow us to dehumanize other sentient beings. Embracing nonviolence as a foundational moral principle is essential.
Many spiritual traditions, when interpreted correctly, advocate for nonviolence. However, ideologies promoting violence and discrimination must be rejected on moral grounds. The appeal of New Atheism lies in a widespread discontent with the violence associated with organized religion, yet we must recognize that hatred itself, rather than the religious framework, is the true problem.
Thus, a rejection of religious beliefs does not inherently lead to peace and justice. Secular institutions can perpetuate violence too. Hitchens asserts that organized religion is the primary source of hatred, but I argue that it is the hatred itself that needs addressing.
In conclusion, achieving a moral understanding of nonviolence cannot be derived solely from scientific rationality; it requires a belief in its moral truth.