I had an interesting conversation today with a thoughtful student in China. His view is not necessarily commonly shared in China; but it is interesting to see how an atheist, without Christian influences, thinks about morality.
His initial premise is that human nature is evil. We are animals. As animals, we are only programmed for survival. The example he uses is this: there is one bottle of water. Two people want it. If necessary, in nature, one will kill the other to take the water. This is evil.
The process of education is the process of making us “good.” Or rather, we do not really become good; our hearts, or desires, are still animal. But we are taught to behave differently in order be able to cooperate with other people, to fit into society. For one thing, this is necessary in order to find a mate and reproduce. It is also necessary so that society as a whole can function, without descending into chaos. The herd them protects each member.
It all makes good sense to me.
Except for this: now by what standard do we judge any action either “good” or “evil”? Why, to begin with, is individual survival good?
Would we agree that it is perfectly moral to steal the bottle of water, so long as nobody sees you? Would we agree that, if one person or group can indeed benefit themselves by destroying another, this is a perfectly righteous thing to do?
It all seems to require an absolute standard of good and evil; and where does that come from?
How can atheists even raise the problem of evil, without any standard for determining what is evil?
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
