On Moral Values

The ideal example for everyone to look up to determines most of our actions; it is determined by our moral values and it determines what our views of "Good and Evil" are. A good person is defined by each of us as someone who is committed to the values we choose to believe they are most relevant and; thus we can call a human being or an action good or evil. Each of us might have their own perspective on which moral values are most worthy of being held.

It is claimed that the moral values are a product of a metaphysical assertion, such as the existence of God which would determine some moral values beyond the narrow scope of us humans, it offers a privileged perspective (a God's perspective) that we should therefore follow for a better life (and afterlife). So the existence of a God and him writing a certain holy book would have a tremendous impact on the moral values that are ought to be held by all people, on the other hand the non-existence of God would make moral values relative to each individual.

The fact that metaphysical assertions have an impact on moral values was held by most people until it was dramatically challenged by Friedrich Nietzsche; he writes in his book 'Beyond Good and Evil': "It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy has hitherto been: a confession on part of its author,…moreover, the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy have every time constituted the real germ of life of which the entire plant has grown" in other words Nietzsche is challenging the view that metaphysics affect our moral judgments as stated above, rather, he says, our moral values unconsciously affect our metaphysical and epistemological judgments and we make it seem as we arrived at the moral values which were our unconscious starting point. Nietzsche- being incredibly honest with himself- challenges the view that the 'derive to knowledge' has been the father of philosophy, rather philosophy have been a justification of our moral values.


This doesn't only apply to philosophers, but it’s a psychological fact about believing in general, we deceive ourselves into believing the metaphysics and epistemology that would justify our moral values which would impact our whole actions. Having talked to people about their beliefs, I have found out that they are less able to hide this truth than philosophers, the fact that they believe what they believe claims about the world with no apparent reason (or not very convincing reasons) and sometimes in spite of the obvious counter reasons is evident. The moments when we are honest with ourselves, when we are really skeptics, are rare and rare people have them, they are uncertain and doubtful of everything, but they are the closest thing we might have to truth, it's that simply we don’t know.


So if every metaphysical and epistemological assertion has its moral values as consequences, what does the belief that we don't know much about matters such as the existence of God imply? Agnosticism, as well as atheism, would imply the value of freedom, the mother of all values; the freedom to create your own moral values and live by them and judge people accordingly. It would mean that the fact that most people would judge their brothers and sisters in humanity based on what they believe is absurd and unjust. It would also mean that there are no "true" moral values in any sense, rather there are perspectives on moral values, and it would mean complete freedom and equality. But what would the freedom be for? In other words, what would the choice of moral values be based on? The same criteria of course, whatever makes life better, whatever is life affirming and enhancing is a good moral value and a good making quality for the person and the action. Whatever degrades life, and undermines it, is not morality, it is rather immorality and a waste of life. Thus the religions that call life the imperfect and the temporarily life as opposed to the eternally perfect life in the shadow of the eternally perfect God are mostly believed because of suffering in the world (not in spite of it), and mostly those who believe them are life hating people even if they deny that is the main reason for their belief.


Having said that, it becomes easier to explain why skepticism would go hand in hand with loving life and affirming it, poor countries find it redeeming that rich Sweden and strong U.S.A are doomed to go to hell and suffer greatly, while the poor and weak them are rewarded by heaven, the illusion is redeeming and it makes life less bitter, however it doesn't make the bitterness go away, as it does not make those believers move to enhance their life, rather it’s a most probably false belief and an illusion.