Within the scope of Intellectual Interaction Meetings, a session titled ‘Is Morality Possible without God?’, one of the important debates in philosophy, was held on Tuesday, 24 December at the Media and Events Centre, Event Hall. Moderated by our Rector Prof. Dr. Atilla Arkan, the speakers of the programme were Assoc. Prof. Dr. Enis Doko from the Department of Philosophy at Ibn Haldun University and Prof. Dr. Tufan Kıymaz from the Department of Philosophy at Bilkent University.
The Rector Atilla Arkan, who moderated the programme, mentioned in his introduction to the subject that the role of the university is to transform intellectual problems into a way that can solve the problems of society, and that the subject to be discussed in the session is a question (n) that has been going on since the existence of man - meaning and morality as a principle:
‘Morality covers a large part of our lives. There is an aspect that involves certain practices about the meaning of our lives... Since there are two sides, this discussion will allow us to think more deeply about the subject, to look at the contradictions within society, to provide an internal perspective. Is morality possible without belief in a transcendent being? Or to what extent can this fulfil the need? This is a new question(n) in terms of the modern world, but old in terms of its roots. We may not be able to reach an ultimate goal in such matters, but we will have the opportunity to comprehend the issues/areas related to the subject in depth...’
Enis Doko began his presentation of his views on the subject by emphasising that ‘We need this format not only at the university but also in Turkey’. While he stated that he represents the view that says ‘There is no morality without God’, on the other hand, he elaborated on the subject by explaining what he does not defend. So, what does the researcher not claim when he says that there is no morality without God?
‘Firstly, I do not claim that if a person does not believe in God, he must be immoral. Nor do I claim that religious people are more moral. This is something that needs to be examined sociologically... My claim is that if there is no God, there is no metaphysical, ontological basis for morality. My claim is that the objectivity of conscience and morality requires God. I take God here not as a god of Islam, but as the concept of God in general...’
Doko then drew attention to the concepts of ‘objective morality’, ‘hypothetical imperative’, ‘categorical imperative’, Kant's ideas of God and the afterlife, and emphasised the necessity of reflecting on the nature of morality:
So if we believe that they exist objectively, what can justify this?
Therefore, if we believe in an objective morality, it follows that we also believe in a God.
Doko states that there was a relationship between God and morality at the beginning of the Enlightenment, but that it was severed afterwards, and by giving examples from the history of philosophy, he reminds us that Plato had the ‘ideal of the good’, the nature-god equivalence in the Stoics, and recommends Alasdair Maclntyre's book ‘A Study of Moral Theory in Pursuit of Virtue’ and adds: ‘The Enlightenment failed to ground morality...’
Our Rector Prof. Dr. Atilla Arkan, while leaving the floor to Tufan Kıymaz, reminded the audience that the field of discussion is not the field of behaviour, but the plane of principles and theoretical frameworks behind all these.
Tufan Kıymaz, Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Bilkent University, moved the plane of the subject to a metaphorical area with the antitheses he brought to the discussion and made seminal suggestions.
Before moving on to his claims and justifications on the subject, Kıymaz drew attention to the importance of the event with the words ‘An event on such a controversial subject, especially such an event supported and moderated by the rector, should set an example for all universities...’.
While terms such as ‘objective truth’ and ‘subjective truth’, the question ‘Can moral propositions be objectively true?’, and the issue of ‘whether moral subjectivism can explain social norms’ formed the theoretical background, the following conclusions and ‘questions’ -yes, not answers but question(s)- were reached.
‘So either God is random, which is unacceptable, or there is a justification for it. This is the basic and famous objection (the dual theory).’
According to Kıymaz, ‘good and evil’ are separate concepts and ‘obligation’ is a separate concept. When we think like this, we go to another problem, the problem of ‘a priori obligation’. Then our question becomes: ‘If the source of obligation is God's command, where does my obligation to act within the framework of that approval come from?’ According to Kıymaz, this goes on forever and does not provide an explanation.
Essentially, it will be shaped by what kind of being we are. We can call this ‘proper living’. What distinguishes us from other animals is that we have reason. Because there is an ability to evaluate biological impulses: Reason. Reason gives us the freedom of choice. Kıymaz's view is ‘morality in accordance with reason’.
According to Kıymaz, we can only infer it ‘a priori’. Philosophy is an attempt to refine intuition with reason, and conscience is one of the most valuable intuitions.
At the end of the programme, where the audience was also given a microphone for their questions and the topics were elaborated and discussed from different perspectives through questions, the opinion of the speakers and the rector was that these were difficult questions and did not contain clearly defined answers.
