Peter Singer

John Hare
Peter Singer (atheist ethicist)
Debate: Without belief God, is anything permitted? For instance,
consider the evil atrocities committeddo the performance of those
things depend on our whether we believe in God or not? The issue is
about morality.
Is this the same as can you say that something is good or bad in
and of itselfwithout belief in the God defined in traditional
Christian terms as omnibenevolent, omnipotent and
omniscient?
Another way to ask the question: Is belief in God necessary
for making moral judgmentsas in whether something is
morally good or bad?
--an all powerful, all knowing and al-good good cannot create a world in
which suffering exists. Therefore there is no such God. God who
created the world and has these attributes.
If animals suffer, on what basis or criteria do you basis your judgment
that they suffer?
Everyd body is coming to the table with their presuppositions that
there is evil, or moral suffering in the world , and that there is bad and
good in the world. Yet, on what basis or criteria does one
determine whether something is good or bad , evil or pure? Or
more specific to the debate, is belief in God a necessary basis
to determine whether something is morally good or morally
bad.
---we need to understand the foundations of morality as best as we
can without Godthe goal of the atheist ethicist
Why does anyone one base belief in God as a necessary basis
for making moral judgments? Why would anyone think that you
cant say that acts are morally wrong or morally good without
belief in God? Three reasons why theists suggest that you
cant say that something is morally wrong or morally good
without belief in God are:

1. right and wrong are meaningless unless you believe in the

existence God.
-something is right because God wills it and something is wrong
because God says it is wrong.
If God is God of Love
And Love is Good
Then God is Good by Definition, therefore the notion that love is
good and then projecting it on God is not my own concoction, but
that God himself is the very definition of good that determines
what is good or bad.

2. We will not have know what is good or bad without Gods

guidance/revelation to guide us into telling us whats is good or
bad supposing that we have some meaning of right and wrong in
the atheist universe.
Well the fact that there are different views does not mean that Gods
revelation does not have the truth..or the fact that Christians say
certain things that the bible does not say or cannot be found in the
bible does not mean that morality cannot be found in the text. The
fact that Christians cannot handle the text properly doesnt mean that
the text/revelation/scriptures is inadequate or invalid.
3. God provides the motivation---immortality---meaning without
God, we wouldnt necessarily do whats good? We can as well be
motivated by others to do god who dont necesseriy have to
believe in God or whether theyre religious or not. There is no
correlation favoring the religious. Or that we need a divine being
for motivation.

Where does morality come from?

-

evolutionary view of human existence

- evidence of the development of social behavior/ forms of
evolution of social behavior which parallels some of our moral
principles.
**social mammals
**thus the morality we have comes from evolutionary
mechanisms within our system, within mammals
**he also argues that reason is evolutionary

**morality comes from natural selection

isnt there a gap b/n moral things/social things and
evolutionary chemistry?
His presentation of the scientific evidence that links
social behaviors in mammals to something innate in their
evolutionary chemistry was pale.

John Hare
To threat ethics as entirely independent of religion? Can we do
that
--disagreement about **motivation and justification
1. governancethis is the way God has created the world.
2. what actually gets us to lead a morally good life.

3. We should think of evolution as Gods instrument.

Theistic evolution

1. God created the world so that our happiness meshes with our
morality. The good will eventually prevail in the world despite
suffering. Peter Singer argues that he also does not why God
allows certain things to happen. But eventually God is good
and our he has paired our morality with our happiness. God is
good because the amount of good that is in the world is
indeed enormous. God is good because rational morality
exists.

Moral MOTIVATION: is it self-interest???

1. we value human lifeten commandmentsbecause of
Gods revelation in scriptures
1. I am motivated to please God because I love God, or I love
what God likes, and this is different from self-interest!
2. Religious morality has the power to change peoples lives
Data shows that religious people do a lot more good things
than non-religious people.

Why should Singera utilitarian--- want to take God out of the

lives of religious people, who their faith gives additional
motivation to them being moral. Well, if its additional, then it
means people can make moral decisions without God. Here
john becomes a utilitarian.
- constraints dont produce motivationthey function to limit the
exercise of motivations---constraints such as oglden rule is internal to
the faith of christiainity which the golden rule constrains.

John Hare actually did not respond directly to Peter Singers

arguments
a. JUSTIFICATION: why should I take the moral demand as a
demand upon me?
What is the justification for morality? Self-interest no, communities
no, self-evident-no
Non-theist---hare thinks the best option for non-theist is that morality is
not justified by anything outside of itself---its a primitive, starting point
But hare thinks that the problem is, if it is just a primitive, it leaves us
exposed when our will is weakwhen it will be good to have something
more, because of the difficulty of the moral life without justification.
The justification for morality cannot be morality itself---moral things are
good in and of themselves. The justification is because God has called
us to moral lives.

And yet hare thinks that the need for moralityjustificationmay be

hard wired in to us, although he believes the evidence is not yet clear
on the other side
If we care about our relation to god, then we will care about how god
wants us to live.

Rebuttal from peter singer

1. We cannot appeal to God
2. There is no God, therefore we have to fact the facts of the chasm
b/m morality and happiness
3. Why do we do it still? Partically? Partial asnwers
a. half-benevolent affections we have
b. finding our lives fulfilling if it meets our interests broadly
conceived
4. our problems would be easier to resolve if we didnt have deeply
entrenched religious beleifs that motivate our lives
Rebuttal from John Hare
1. we do have an answer for reconciliation nand justification
2. john hARES rebuttal was very poor. The reason he gave is that
we should abandon religion because its so part of many peoles
lives.
--so the process of evolution may be purposelss, but it results very well
much create the conditions necessary for human beings to thinkreason- and assume a purpose for their lives that helps them survive.

---Singer believes his selfish desire plays a greater weight in his ethical
life, so inherently hes a selfish life. Jon Hare gets him and say if hes
really commited to morality, then he would feel guilty if he sees that
hes not wholly ethical. The religious point of view gives a way for
reconciling the broken human.
***peter singers view is religious in science and self.
Eventually peter singer concedes that the moral demand is justified by
self-interests although also disturbed by selfinterest since self interests
does not make one fully ethical, while hare concedes that the moral
demand is justified by a holy God, who demands moral lives, and whow
ill eventually solve the problem of the sense of moral failure.
Also peter concedes that the reason why others are more ethical than
others is because some have developed highly in other traitswe call
them selfish traits and some others have developed highly in other
traitsdetection and punishment of selfish traits.
But Ohare never quite gave a reasn or the justification of why morality
should be justified in a being outside of us.

Self-critical awareness survivalthe ability to weigh moral things.

I am not committed to reason primarily, what I am commited to is the
self-revelation of God in creation, the natural revelation(way the world
works) and history. Apologetics is not committed to reasoning as the
basis for believing in anything, but self-revelation is the basis for
believing in anything.
-And how apologetics is linked with Gods self revelation
in nature, creation, history and its impact for the present
and future.
**How do we do know that our reason is right? Its when we
conform to revelation. Can you rely on your reasoning, is reason
equally accessible and equally adequate in everyone?