Moral Frameworks and Where They Come From
As you and I have discussed previously, I have grave concerns that America is losing the necessary underpinnings for an ethical and moral public life. As a born again Christian, my faith provides base, the needle, even "magnetic north" for my "moral compass." Having said that, I've acknowledged that I believe there are people of deep moral and ethical convictions who are not religious or do not believe in God.
But I am curious. As a man who stands very firm on deeply held moral principles (foremost perhaps as a pacifist), where do your moral landmarks come from? How are your moral judgements grounded?
Before I either add more aspects of that question -- or even let you answer it (only one of us can blog at a time after all) -- a short digression by way of giving you my answer that explains it for me and my faith.
I would say I am blessed with a strict need to rationally think through, process, and integrate everything. (Others would say this is a burden.) I was an atheist up until 1987 or so. When sinking into a deep discontent and despair over an unwanted separation and ultimate divorce, I followed the example of my ex and got involved in 12 step groups. I discovered behaviors and patterns of thinking best explained by being a child of dysfunction. (The specifics are not important.)
I relied on the concept of an unspecified Higher Power to help me heal myself enough to start asking the big questions. That led to an agnosticism, and eventually to deism, and then to the Bible, and then to an acceptance of Jesus as both Son of God and my personal savior.
The real sticking point was achieving deism. As a highly rational and scientific minded person, I wasn't comfortable taking anybody's word for anything to do with God. So I conducted a thought experiment one January day, walking along frozen canals and abandoned settlements along the Mohawk River.
Fast forward, in the end, I concluded that I firmly believed in absolute good and absolute evil, and I could identify behaviors and events that were conclusively in one category or another. I further believed that I knew in my heart and mind that these "truths" would be true whether I accepted them or not, they were not relative or adaptable. To me, that had to argue for a consciousness of some kind, a God who was responsible for establishing a priori, good and evil. That may not mean the same for someone else, but for me, that was pretty convincing.
I know that you are not a moral relativist. I believe you hold a passionate dedication to some pretty basic moral truths, based on some of your previous responses.
But for you, if you've thought about it, where does morality come from? Why do we care to do right? Why should we do right?
How do we know what's right, upon what do we base it on? Are there moral truths that are knowable, and how can we prove them, or what can we use as evidence?
Because it has seemed to me that if you do not accept the possibility of some kind of creative consciousness or God, what one is left with is a strictly utilitarian argument, what is good for self, or family, or tribe, or nation, or survival of the species, and that no appeal outside of utility (usefulness of behavior or sets of behavior) would be logical.
LiberalAvenger's Response #1:
This is an excellent question and I am very glad that you asked it. It will be interesting and informative for me, too, to explore the whys and wherefores of my belief system.
It is also directly related to an issue that has at times infuriated me. There exists in our society at present a significant number of people who believe to their core that absent religion (and in particular, Christianity) in one's life, one is incapable of adhering to a moral code. This is insulting and asinine.
[continued response...]
I've spent a great deal of time overseas traveling or living in a dozen different countries. The one strong, persistent impression I've carried with me through these experiences is that there are definitely some constants to human nature. Regardless of our race, creed, color or national origin, for the most part, we humans all love our children, respect our elders, enjoy sex, fall in love, enjoy a good meal, etc.
This leads me to conclude that some universal moral truths do in fact exist in the human race. They are most certainly not strictly adhered to by all people at all times, but they are an intrinsic part of the force that guides humanity as a whole. I don't think one needs a governmental or spiritual law to understand that killing others is "wrong." Additionally, after having been thrust into an environment where the law (both governmental and spiritual) allows or even encourages killing (a religious war might be an example), there are unquestionably people who are conflicted about the act.
Religious doctrine across the board largely reflects these moral truths as well with very few exceptions. A Tibetan Buddhist can relate to the 10 Commandments while a Christian or Jew can relate back to The Eightfold Path.
Our societies and cultures, grown slowly over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, naturally reflect these truths as identified by religion in their laws, customs and social mores which, in turn, reinforce the values within us all.
[End Part #1 of LiberalAvenger's response. More to follow...]
posted by Jeff @ 12:42 PM
40 comments
40 Comments:
Good question, for this really is the spine which undergirds a lot of what you guys have been discussing here.
Also, wanted to say that what you guys have started here at Debate Space may turn into a model for other like experiments. I and another blogger (Chad at PlaidBerry have started kicking around the idea of creating a similar space for Christians and atheists to . . . you know . . . talk.
Keep up the great work!
(Anyone know who I talk to in order to cut my Newsweek subscription short and get a refund?)
Ella's Dad,
Thanks for the support. (I appreciate how your child is an obviously central part of your life, too.)
Keep us posted if you and Chad get something off the ground.
Just vs Unjust,good vs evil.Some people need faith because they can't feel it, or make it out on their own.I don't mean that they lack the ability,but in all honesty
they want simple guidance and be sure that everyone agrees.No need to worship God if you don't abide by his ways.But in the bible it is also said that "Even if you don't believe in god you are worthy if you apply his rules.
1- Thou shalt not kill !!
I would like to suggest that faith in God isn't the same thing as a list of rules. The difference is the difference between the Law and the Gospel.
I had an interesting exchange with someone, once, who was writing a science fiction story set in a culture where there was no right and wrong at all... not even murder held any moral cost. This person claimed, more or less, that terrible represive religions and people and culture just made all that stuff up. I said "you just can't do that, it wouldn't work" and got back "You can't tell me what I can't do!" Which was really rather funny, because if there are no rules I can tell him anything I please to tell him, can't I. ;-)
What I see when I look at Christian morality isn't a list of arbitrary rules set down by God and wrong because God said so, I see a list of rules set down by God because He understands the human condition. In a sense, we're the source of the rules, not God. I may follow those rules because I desire to be obedient, but I'm under no illusion that the rules themselves are for God's benefit.
In which case, it's possible to look at people and human nature and come up with a moral framework that relies on "natural law." Cause and effect. Chances are it will have similarities to religion based morality.
If I lie, the people I know will not trust me. Lying is bad. If I steal from my neighbor my neighbor is going to be injured and I may face retaliation. Stealing is bad. If I always think of myself first I'm going to have trouble building cooperative relationships and will be less secure because of that. If I'd like not to be murdered, it makes sense to support laws against murder even if I am then less free. If the community is to survive (and with it, my cooperative network that makes me more secure) children have to be brought to adulthood. Rules about sex quickly follow. (A small community may care for children cooperatively but in a larger community rules will develop to identify who is responsible for whom.)
It's usually pretty easy to understand why personal integrity is a good thing but it's human nature to fudge the margins with a concept of things too important to lie about and things that just don't matter that much. Or stealing... stealing big things is bad, but taking something from someone who won't miss it isn't so bad, or taking advantage of someone elses misfortune isn't stealing at all. Or sexual morality doesn't matter because I'm too enlightened to feel betrayed and will certainly take care of *my* children.
Maybe, yes, it's easier to just take God's word for it and follow the rules as they are given. But it's still possible to see the systemic problems presented by a failure to enforce a culturally consistant morality on the basis that *this* rule or *that* rule really don't apply to me. Murder seems unambiguous, but lying or stealing or adultery? Coveting?
Can you even imagine the pain that would be avoided if people just kept their pants on? I don't believe having a drink is evil, but how many families are torn apart by drugs and alcohol? Couldn't we rightly say that those things are bad? Even if they don't hurt *me*?
I think so.
And by following the rules, even when I don't directly avoid harm, I make it easier for others to avoid harm by reenforcing social mores. And we've gotten all the way to the admonition not to "cause our brother to stumble."
AND since we all live in the community there is always going to be pressure on others to toe the line. It's not just a religious thing. Cooperative efforts work better when everyone is, in fact, cooperating.
The question of ethics is who makes the rules: Man or God? But I think we have to distinguish between morality and ethics.
Do intrinsic values exist? If not how do we make MORAL decisions...how do we JUDGE what is Morally right and morally wrong?
Does Moral Law require a divine lawgiver?
Dr. Albert Schweitzer: "Ethics is concern for good behavior . . . an obligation to consider not only our personal well-being, but also that of others and of human society as"
True, but in a world of relavistic ethics, who sets the standard, if not God.
There does exist a universal moral standard....In studying chimps, Goodall and many others, have seen the presence of a definate moral code amongst them.
Quoting Jane Goodall "I've seen much evidence of their morality. To give one example: a male might break up a fight. Some of them watch sunsets--that's a spiritual mind at work. They can also show altruism"
If this is not God Given, then from where does it come?
Here's the best post I know of on this subject:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0143188/2005/04/06.html
Now having said that...Morality is NOT a product of any one faith!
It comes to ALL of us from GOD. I get uneasy when Christians insist that they alone are the rightful voice of Morality. The Ten Commandments were a Moral Code given by Moses to the Isrealites, The CHosen People.
While Christianity in an attempt to legitimize itself, has attached itself to the Old Testament (Christians - Olive branch - St Paul) lets not confuse truth with wishful thinking.
Where I get concerned is when Christians imply and/or insist that ONLY Christians and Christianity provide the Moral voice, the Moral standard, the moral compass.
These moral laws were also given to the ancient babylonians, who turned them into the Code of Hammerabi...a set of moral guideposts for the Ancient Babylonias to live by.
They transcend time and religion.
These moral laws are written on all mens hearts; and I agree that they come from a Divine Source, a Creative Consciousness, God.
but neither group questions the central fact that morality pertains only to the human race
Hmmm..this point is arguable..as my example of the inate morality found in Chimps. Morality does NOT simply pertain to humans...there is an inane morality that exists in animals...how many dogs have saved their owners from death and injury at their own expense.
If I save a child from drowning...is it not my sense of morality that compels me to do so? Then what compels the dog to save a child?
Or the ape in the zoo to fend off all the other apes when a child has fallen into the animal pit, as the ape cradles the child until help comes??? A sense of MORALITY!
Where does that inate sense come from? GOD!
The Ten Commandments are sometimes thought to be self-explanatory. But clearly they are not. They have exceptions. "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply in wartime. Also, the exceptions have exceptions. Killing in wartime does not apply to civilians or POWs. Soon one commandment branches out into an infinite regress, leaving the believer, if he rejects history, paralyzed from an infinity of choices. If that never really happens, it's because every believing Christian grows up within a moral tradition that trains him, situation by situation, to perceive right conduct from wrong.
Two points come to mind:
Most Christians, fail to understand that The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites as a Code of Behavior AMONG THEMSELVES. The God of the OT was creating a new nation..killing those outside the "tribe" was acceptable....killing those within your tribe was not.
As the Isrealites began to panic and building idols of Gold to the pagan gods they had previously worshipped..ONLY THEN.. was Moses given the Commandments to pass along to the Isrealites! Context is important in understanding the OT, and the purpose of The Commandments.
2nd point: Is the author implying that ONLY Christians grow up within a moral tradition that trains them alone to determine right from wrong situationally??
I am not a Christian, yet I have always had an inate moral sense that enables me to determine right from wrong situationally.
The same can be said of Jews, Muslims, Aethists, agnostics, and many others who do not subscribe to "religion" but instead different spiritual traditions, and we now know the same applies to chimps and apes.
Dogs are animals that have evolved to please humans. The theory goes that the wolves evolved into dogs by following humans around, eating their scraps, and the wolves which had traits that allowed them to get closer to the humans (IE, no fear or malice towards us) bred. Down the generations, they lost the ability to hunt as humans become their sole suppliers. They have a wide variety of traits but many were bred for their protectiveness.
Protectiveness is different from morality--a wolf has evolved to be protective of the members of its pack because if all the members of the pack are protective of one another, the individual wolves are all safer for it. The dog, likewise, is bred to look out for humans because if it does, then humans will generally look out for it.
Not conscious, perhaps, but I wouldn't really call it morality, either.
"2nd point: Is the author implying that ONLY Christians grow up within a moral tradition that trains them alone to determine right from wrong situationally??"
I know the author personally, and the answer to this question is no.
If that never really happens, it's because every believing Christian grows up within a moral tradition that trains him, situation by situation, to perceive right conduct from wrong
Well Adam, in re reading closely, what I conclude from this comment that he believes that morality is taught and not inate.
It sounds to me like he's confusing ethics with morality.
Ethics are derived from morality, but where does "morality" originate..where does it "come" from, what is morality's "first cause" ?
No, I believe he's saying that morality is derived from tradition.
Morality, and Reason, and everything else for that matter are at least strongly connected to tradition. Paine, Aristotle, and Plato are all good strong names, but I happen to disagree with all three of them on nearly everything, Plato in particular. For my philosophical dish I prefer Protagoras, David Hume, and Karl Popper.
Adam...Tradition is taught!
its passed down from generation to generation...that is the same thing as being taught...what the author is saying is that morality is taught.
But that negates a first cause.
And frankly...the idea that morality comes from tradition makes no sense.
Native American Indians have traditions, Jews have traditions, Christians have traditions. What does a tradition have to do with morality?
Chimps don't have traditions...yet they have a moral code.
I wouldn't say taught exactly. "Passed down" would probably be a more accurate portrayal.
But then, if you have any more questions about the author's intended meaning, you could probably ask him yourself you know :) I don't want to continue answering on his behalf when I risk misrepresenting him.
Dos: I still say Reason is a tradition. The way that we go about questioning things usually follows a kind of doubting or discussing that has been passed down to us in the form of a tradition of thought.
No need to apologize--disagreement is more enjoyable :)
I find your response odd. In what way is the debate over stem-cell research related to reason? It's a completely moral discussion, with arguments made entirely on traditional premises. The points of view, as I understand them, are on the one hand, you want to allow scientific research that could potentially develop cures for currently incurable diseases. In other words, allow the scientific practise to continue as it traditionally has.
However, with every advancement that science makes, it is also traditional to question the ethics of it.
People have a very rigid view of what tradition is. Tradition is not something stifling and rigid; tradition is a huge ground upon which there are many practises that have stood the test of time--as well as many points of view, and many of these points of view conflict with one another.
The very idea of debating the ethics of something is a tradition, but frankly, I don't see where Reason is involved with any of this, except to help give us an idea of what the situation is. Once you step beyond the realm of description and into the realm of right and wrong, Reason is no longer the moderator of the discussion. You appeal to other things, based not in reason but in a perception of morality.
That's how I see it, anyway :)
My moral framework, although based on rationalism rather than religion, comes to the same basic conclusions.
It is not in my personal best interest to live in a system where "the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must." Instead, it is in my best interest for society to follow the "Golden Rule": do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The current chaos in Iraq is a good example of why following The Golden Rule makes rational sense.
Unfortunately, many folks don't apply the Golden Rule's principle to other people's religious beliefs. Instead, they try and use political power to cram their religion down everyone else's throat.
This problem is endemic to many religions. Mahatma Ghandi was assasinated by a "Hindu fanatic who could not forgive Gandhi for his belief that Muslims had equal value to Hindus and no-one was better than anybody else." Violence between the Muslim Shiite and Sunni sects, Jewish/Muslim strife, Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland. All these deeply religious folks felt morally justified in harassing, beating and even killing "non-believers" based upon strongly held religious beliefs.
Business management teaches one to delegate as much authority as far down the chain of command as possible without compromising control of the business' broader goals. This concept is mirrored in the US Constitution's recognition of the 51+ individual governments constituting these United States (Federalism)
Studying this lead me to what I consider a rational moral framework: society must balance the intrusive nature of state regulation against its members' respective rights to run their own lives. This is why, for example, I feel it is immoral for society to mandate posting the 10 Commandments in public schools due to the perceived endorsement of one particular belief system
Well said Dos Centavos, and I agree with you. The Ten Commandments may be perceived as being religious...but for decades black americans were perceived to be LESSER human beings. Lets change the perception!
The Ten Commandments do not belong to ANY ONE RELIGION..they do not even belong to RELIGION...they are moral codes that all individuals in ANY society need to live by in order to prevent the complete degradation and breakdown of that society. They predate Christianity and Judaism.
However, even if you insist on acording them a religious label - such as Judeo Christian Commandments - so be it - our country was founded on JUDEO CHRISTIAN principals, our Constitution was inspired by the Bible, and, God and His wisdom as expressed in The Bible, are both iintrinsic to and enshrined in the writings of the foundational documents of the United States.
Removing the Ten Commandments would be like removing the US Constitition from public places.
here exists in our society at present a significant number of people who believe to their core that absent religion (and in particular, Christianity) in one's life, one is incapable of adhering to a moral code. This is insulting and asinine...
Yes there may be a few vocal Christian or RELIGIOUSIST fundamentalists in the US that believe this, but those numbers are quite small.
More likely you are misunderstanding what is being said by those who know that our Founding Fathers believed in and created a country based on divine guidance from God.
Since liberals are always soooo concerned about our relationships with OTHER countries and how other countries view us....why are you not concerned that most of Europe and 3/4 of the rest of the world view Americans as OVERLY liberal in their lifestyle, one filled with vulgarity and crime, they believe we have two things on our minds: Money and Sex, that AETHIESM is now America's religion, and that secularism has destroyed the wholesome goodness of America..."America USED TO BE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY"!
Why do liberals who profess to care so much about how this war in Iraq was perceived by other countries seem to be oblvious to the truth about how those same countries view secularist America as being at the root of all evil now!
I mean its not just Islamic fundamentalists that feel this way, LA, its 3/4 of the world: Asians, Europeans, and Arabs!
Comments like "Your TV Shows are corrpupting our youth, your disintegration of your core Judeo Christian prinicipals is shameful, we are disgusted by your culture, your women are loose, youre too easily tempted to behave IMMORALLY,your young people no longer have allegiance to their parents, their traditonal community, their religion, and you embrace sam sex marriage, the killing of unborn babies, and whats more, you insist on imposing that vulgar morality on the world" are frequent in both Asian and Arab media, more so in European media and coffee shop conversations.
Liberal secuarists may want to believe that Christianity, and Judaism, and RELIGION are the problem in America...and that the country is becoming "too Christian or Too Relgiius" but half of Americans and 3/4 of the world's poeple DISAGREE COMPLETELY.
America is no longer perceived as a Judeo Christian Country, but as one that has allowed liberal mores to sway us away from our core.
THIS is what the terrorists hate, this is why they try to kill us, not because we are a Judeo Christian country, LA, but because we are no longer! Because secularists have gotten a foothold, and have step by step, contributed to the moral decline of this country.
I think as a liberal, and as an aethiest, you need to step back and understand how this country is viewed by others.
.
I think what most Christians and Jews, and those who subscribe to religion are saying is that without the foundations found in Judeo Christianity, morality becomes relative. What you find morally acceptable, I find repulsive. But we need a standard by which to measure that!
If not The Ten Commandments, if not Judeo Christian foundations, then what do you propose should be considered the standard? Moral relativism states that all standards are okay because they respect the individuals choice. Come on LA...you're too smart not to see where that leads any society....down the path of CHAOS. If I think killing is an unborn child is morally okay..then why should I be punished for killing ANY child??
Its funny how you distain Americans for accusing those who do not believe in God to be incapable of living a moral life, but when 3/4 of the worlds other countries say the same thing about America, you seem not to care!
Do I need to remind you that Communism was the religion of its followers and human reason was their god. Communism holds to the belief that men of sufficient intelligence and good intentions could devise a perfect society free from want and conflict.
(lets define Sufficient intelligence!!)
Their enemy was the God of Christianity and Judaism.
And look at what Communism brought to the 20th Century! Some of the worst atrocities committed in the 20th century!!
Communists believed the struggle was between God and Communism ( NO GOD) They viewed America as a God-fearing country, and it was!!
They understood that the US was founded upon specific understandings about the Creator, as found in The Bible! We know that Our founders prayed for divine guidance in ordering the affairs of the new nation.
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS opened all their legislative sessions by invoking God’s guidance, coined money with In God We Trust, took the oath of office with, “So help me God.” and swore on The Bible when they testified in court.
Should securalists fight for the eradication of ALL these things? Our founding fathers must be appalled at whats happened to this country at the hands of secularists and aethiests who won't acknowledge the truth about this VERY truth:
When our Founding Fathers spoke and wrote about their hopes for this new nation they were creating, they unequivocally acknowledged that this experiment, this republic, would not work unless the people were religious and God-fearing!America was founded on Divine Rights!
The Declaration of Independence states the source of those rights is our "CREATOR"
They did NOT impose a state religion, but instead allowed for freedom of all religion, because where you have ONE religion you have tyranny, where you have two, you have religious war, but where there are many, you have FREEDOM.
They created this new country with the firm understanding that a relationship with God is fundamental that GOD not man rules, and that God is the source of all Authority, NOT Man!
You may choose NOT to believe in God..but if you live in America, you must abide by the moral standards our Founding Fathers relied on, and they turned to God and the Bible for those standards.
While The Ten Commandments are moral codes not religious codes, they were given to us by some Higher Creative Consciousness,(God for lack of a better name) and they too inspired our Founding Fathers when writing the US Constititution.
"Are you suggesting we are acting on instinct (such as survival) nothing more nothing less? I am not quiet sure I follow what you are trying to get across here."
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that the basis for whatever side we take is not which one is the more reasonable, but which one is the morally right one, and that Reason cannot tell us which one is morally right. In the end, it's a feeling that determines which side we take.
I don't have any problem with the founding fathers as deists. That God existed was assumed by most people. Security leads to complacency. Though certainly there were reformations and revivals every so often... I hardly think our present crop of fundamentalists are unique. Certainly the original pilgrims thought that right worship was important enough that it could not be compromised. It would have been easier (and more profitable) to bend a little and just go along with the state church in England, after all.
I've had the discussion about affluence, long ago, with some friends who also seriously discussed the question of the morality of drinking caffine. Logically, and quickly, it falls apart. What is affluence? How much is too much? Where is that line? Can I even justify having more than one pair of jeans or more than one pair of shoes if I'm held to this standard?
Am I sinning to be judgemental of others? At what point is it sin and hubris to have snarky thoughts about the lady at church with a fortune of rings on her hands? Isn't it God's place to convict her since only God can see her heart?
Like most things involved in Christianity it's the state of the heart that matters and that isn't something other people are privy to. Coveting is an attitude, not an action. Hoarding wealth is a failure to trust god, but aquiring wealth may well not be any failure of trust at all.
The love of money is the root of all evil and it's easy to be caught by the lure of wealth, but sloth is also sin, and we are supposed to be good stewards, increasing wealth and taking care of our responsibilities. The woman of Proverbs 31 is in business increasing the wealth of the family, taking care of her household.
Admonitions to care for widows and orphans and loving (rather than judgemental) actions toward the lowest beggar doesn't contradict that.
Admonitions... don't.
(I'm actually pretty good with grammar, I just notice after posting.)
"Should I protect myself and when is murder justified in doing so? Must I wait till my person is violated or is violation of property sufficient? Is threat by words sufficient or must it be threat by words with weapon in hand? None the less the ultimate moral code is arrived at by way of reason."
You push this point hard, but have yet to demonstrate what this process of reasoning that allows us to come to moral conclusions is.
Give me some examples of how it works, and we'll go from there.
I said...
"What is affluence? How much is too much? Where is that line? Can I even justify having more than one pair of jeans or more than one pair of shoes if I'm held to this standard?"
Liberal Serving said...
"Ah the christian slippery slope. A favorite. Because a question can be raised, the issue is discarded altogether."
And the liberal neatly discards the same in the same way.
As it was, I wasn't discarding the argument but relating, in fact, the progression of an actual conversation among earnest young adults. Is it moral for me to have two pairs of jeans? Is it right for me to sit in judgement of others? I assure you that the *will* to follow through and live with one pair of jeans was there, if it seemed that God required it.
Liberal serving said...
"According to me the amassing of possessions is greed."
You think so? Surely you mean that it is *evidence* of greed, or else that the *desire* to amass possessions is greed. Yes?
I'd say that it could be greed (one motivation) or it could be insecurity (another motivation) or it could be habit (yet another motivation) or it could be a desire for the side-effects of wealth... standing in the community, public acclaim, or to satisfy the expectation of parents or others. Or else all of the above, otherwise known as ambition and vanity.
Greed or pride or lust or vanity are not *things* they are motivations, feelings, or attitudes. A pretty lady is not automatically vain. A person with accomplishments is not automatically proud. And a person with wealth is not automatically greedy.
(Besides, I'm hardly going to claim poverty and living paycheck to paycheck as a Christian virtue when the *cause* of it is wasteful inattention on my part.)
Oh, and the result of the conversation was that we were reacting, not to the wealth of people we disapproved of, but to the fact that they had more than we did. It was easy to look down our noses and feel superior to them because of our college induced poverty. We felt like they had too much, yet someone with less than we had might feel the same way about us. We concluded that feelings were unrealiable.
Considering the profound poverty that exists in the world we couldn't see a material difference between us and the rich lady with her many rings.
"The moral dilemma is cannibalism acceptable for humans? In our society it is not. How did we arrive to that conclusion if not by reason?"
That's just it--it's perfectly reasonable to say that cannibalism is ok. You cannot come to the conclusion that cannibalism is right or wrong by reason. It's a matter of the rules that society follows--rules that evolved. It starts with a small band of humans who follow certain rules of behavior. The humans who follow rules of behavior that work the best in their environment supercede the humans following rules that might lead them to their deaths. In the wild, if you eat a species more closely related to your own, you're more likely to contract whatever diseases that animal has. SO obviously, if you eat your own species, it's much easier for diseases to get transferred.
One theory, therefore, is that our societies evolved because they believed (for, no doubt, reasons of superstition, unrelated to the medical reasons) that cannibalism was wrong, and the societies nearby that didn't believe this had their diseases spread much more quickly among their populations.
It's just a theory. But if you go from that, then now that we can treat diseases, and test bodies before we eat them--then there really is no rational reason not to go cannibal, is there? It's simply a matter of a tradition.
Allow me to tell a little anecdote.
When I was younger, I witnessed something interested. A draught had dried up a nearby stream, and I witnessed several salmon attempting to jump upstream to spawn, even though the water upstream had all evaporated, leaving nothing behind. My father was with me.
"Dad," I said, "it's so dumb. Why don't they just lay their eggs where they are now? Wouldn't that work the best?"
"It's not about what works the best," my dad said, "it's about what's always worked."
In terms of morality, we can never know what would work the best. Without our traditions, we are left in a nihilist void; we are morally blind. Our traditions may be what has always worked; but it is also a great deal more flexible than the fish's, because it isn't a genetically programmed pattern of behavior; it's transmitted on the level of information. We also have a lot of conflicting traditions to choose from.
If we relied on Reason, we wouldn't get anywhere. In the end, to make a moral choice, we rely on a feeling. When we see something that we feel is wrong, we feel it on a gut level. When we argue that something is right or wrong, we don't rely on Reason--we appeal to things that bring out traditional emotional responses in people.
That's how I see it.
You yourself just reasoned to how it is possible for us to commit cannibalism. I would like to see you attempt to reason how it is right or wrong to. I don't think it's possible to use logic to come to such a moral conclusion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Liberal Serving:The Bible DOES NOT say the amassing of possession is wrong or evil.
The quote is THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF EVIL. Meaning to LOVE money, wealth,material goods instead of loving God FIRST, to seek to acquire material wealth rather than acquiring a relationship with God, is where Man errs in his way. It makes man Greedy, and it is GREED of any kind which lies at the root of evil!
Love God first, the material riches pale in comparison to the riches you receive from a relationship with God is what the author is conveying.
If you worship Money and material possessions, these are fleeting, temporal, and can disappear quickly. What are you left with then? God's love is eternal.
You really need to read and more importantly UNDERSTAND The Bible narrative rather before claiming that the Bible says this or that!
Taking anything out of context including what is found in the Bible is misguided, especially when using it erroneously to lay claim to Christian hypocrisy!
The Commandments DO NOT SAY money is evil. Nor do they say one cannot accumulate wealth! So this alleged hyprocrisy on the part of Christians that you claim is FALSE.
Rhiannon:
The Commandments mention God in a society that worshipped MANY GODS, as did the ancient Israelites, because the movement of consciousness towards ONE GOD was slow to happen.
God is another word to describe a Creative Consciousness, a "First Cause", An "intelligence" that underlies all that occurs both in the macro and microcosmic world.
The idea of The Commandments as a moral code was sent forth so that the Isrealites would stop building IDOLS to false Gods, and stop sleeping around with each other( to put in it in modern day terminolgy)
God as a concept DOES NOT BELONG to religion exclusively. The idea of a Creative Consciousness, a FIRST CAUSE, and the quest to understand what this first cause may be, is also part of the quest of Cosmology, of Quantum Physics, and of String Theory.
The greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century, Einstein, never denied the presence of God, or a Creative Intelligence, in the workings of the Universe and in his quest to understand the Universe.
The Commandments are a MORAL CODE OF BEHAVIOR meant for EVERYONE to follow.
Do aethiests NOT live by this Moral Code? Are you saying if you do not believe in God, you are exempt from behaving according to the the moral code of the Commandments. You can kill whenever, covet another woman's husband or boyfriend, steal?
The Commandments BELONG NO RELIGION exclusively...they are MORAL CODES to live by REGARDLESS of whether or not you believe in God.
Originally given to the Israelites, they were a moral code of behavior that applied to "their tribe". Killling another Isrealite even by accident was in violation of this Code. Killing a Roman, was not!
The enemy was those that stood in the way of nation building, when we understand the OT Narrative.
Today, as man has evolved in his consciousness, we understand that this Moral Code needs to apply to the LARGER tribe of man..to ALL men..in all Societies. However, The Commandment may say Thou Shall Not Kill, we understand that sometimes killing is deemed "acceptable" such as in war, or self defense.
Liberal: I did not SAY that the Founding Fathers were Christians...I acknowleged ( in previous posts) that they were Deist, as did DadManly, so what is your point?
As Deists the Fouding Fathers BELIEVED IN GOD.
I 've quoted quite a few cases to support that statement and to support that SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE DOES NOT MEAN OUR PUBLIC FIGURES CANNOT INVOKES GODS NAME IN GOV'T, IN SCHOOLS, IN COURTS!
Nor does a "non belief" in God imply a lack of moral behavior or foundation. However, that moral behavior has to have a standard by which even a non believer or non Christian, can be measured against or our societal laws have no bearing. That standard is The Ten Commandments. If it isn't then please let me know WHICH standard informs non believers, which CODE OF MORAL BEHAVIOR informs non believers?
Simply not believing in God DOESNT negate you NEEDING TO BEHAVE according to the Moral Codes outlined in The Ten Commandments, given to Moses by GOD!
God, or rather Divine Guidance from God, was at the heart and soul of everything the Founding Fathers incorporated in their lives, both personally and politically, and in the foundational documents of this country!
The Ten Commandments as a moral code of behavior informed, inspired, and are intrinsic to the United States Constititution.
Since the Ten Commandments are Judeo Christian in nature, meaning since they were given to the Israelites and are Codified in this manner in OT, and no where else, and since Christianity is connected to the OT, for without it the NT would be irrelevant, then it is fair to say that The Commandments are Judeo-Christian in nature.
However, they BELONG TO NO ONE RELIGION, they are a Moral Code by which ALL MEN should live, whether you be Agnostic, Christian, Aethiest, Jew, Hindu, Muslim. etc.
Therefore since the are a CODE OF MORAL BEHAVIOR NOT LIMITED TO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS...they can be displayed publically and in gov't buildings.
However, this country was founded on that which our Founding Fathers considered to be a Judeo Christian foundational Moral Code, so it is fair to say that this country is founded on Judeo Christian principals, at at its Heart and Soul it is a Judeo-Christian country.
It was those J-C principals,and the Divine Guidance as expressed in The Bible, that informed our Founding Fathers in the building of this nation.
And for the record Liberal Serving, Christians are human and fallible, NO ONE is perfect and NO one can live perfectly to the standard set by The Ten Commandments.No Christan has ever PROFESSED to be able to do so.
Because YOU claim to know the Bible, which you clearly do not, you also claim to recognize Christian hypocrisy.
You're knowledge of the first is erroneous, therefore your conclusions about the latter are likewise erroneous.
Dos: You completely miss my point. What I was using reason to do was find possible explanations for why our society evolved the way it did. That has nothing to do with coming to a conclusion on what right and wrong actually are.
Our society probably had some superstitious reason for believing that cannibalism was evil that had absolutely nothing to do with reason, back when the tradition was still new. The fact that I, today, still find cannibalism disgusting is not something that has anything to do with reason.
Dos Centavos:
Post anything you like in your yard. Worship whatever you want in church. The problem arises when you want to use the power of government to post your beliefs in publicly-owned land while denying me that same privilege.
"Post anything you like in your yard. Worship whatever you want in church. The problem arises when you want to use the power of government to post your beliefs in publicly-owned land while denying me that same privilege."
There was a piece of art in a public-funded museum of modern art that had the artist's urine in a cut with a cross in it. It was called the "Piss Christ". That was there on government money.
If it's wrong to post christian beliefs on public property/with public money, is it also wrong to post criticism of it? Why or why not?
This post has sparked a lot of debate in the comments, but are we ever going to see any debate on the blog itself?
"This leads to the idea that Morals are a learned response and not inherint in anyone."
Perhaps, but isn't the craving to learn them an inherent characteristic of humanity? After all, no human culture has been without morality in the history of our existence.
"If you reduce the standard of living below the survival line then morals are quickly discarded."
I couldn't disagree more. Rules of behavior were developed long before we had a high standard of living--and it was the groups that had rules of behavior that meshed well with their environment and helped them to thrive that were the CAUSE of the increase in the standard of living, and allowed them to survive when other groups did not.
"We have proven that when threatened that we will act without restraint or morals just like animals."
Maybe people without much character will.
How exactly would you go about proving that all sorts of people, with all sorts of different personalities and good or bad habits, would react the same way to a threat/harsh environment?
"Almost all of the moral laws we have come from societies that had already gotten past the need to survive."
Ever read Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart"?
Some specific African tribes would leave newborn twins out to die because they believed them to be born of "evil". Granted, we find this practise abhorant today, but it clearly isn't a practise driven by survival instinct--they believed, because of local superstition, that it was morally wrong to raise twins.
This practise was not abolished because the tribes grew more prosperous, but rather, because another, more powerful (economically and of course, militarily) culture came to run their affairs.
Not saying that I believe killing twins is right, mind you--just saying that it was a decision based on certain ideas of morality that they were making, regardless of their relatively impoverished situation.
"But even if that was not the case then it is not a question of morality as much as religion. Religion can influence or even dictate many morals. This is not something I disagree with but I want it to be clear that they be lost or conform to survival instincts if it comes down to that."
I'd like to flip that around--I think that religion and morality and superstitions come FIRST, and cultures get by or fall behind based on whether or not those rules of behavior they have imposed on themselves help them to survive their situation.
Just as you can't say that we evolved a certain way IN ORDER to survive, but rather, only the ansestors with certain characteristics were best suited to survive the environments that they lived in, so I would say that in this case again, the rules came first, and continued to be practised not because they were imposed to help people survive, but rather, it continued to be practised because the cultures that practised them, for one reason or another, survived.
Reading stuff like this makes it rather hard to agree with Cole.
If they're going to obsess on the subject, they could at least wait until they have real evidence before they start spreading rumors.
I want to know why Dadmanly thinks it is wrong to use utility to postulate morals and ethics. I suggest that utility is exactly what morals began as and they have been passed on until they are not only tradition but are beginning to be included in our genetic foundations.
Because the christian god is a rather late comer on the religious scene, I take extreme umbrage at the idea that it is the source of all moral codes. Morality existed among tribal people to enable them to live together. It was easier then because everyone in the tribe knew all others in the tribe. They also knew the spirits that inhabited the trees, the rocks and the thunderstorms and avoided them. When people began to live in larger groups, they needed rules so that they and their belongings were safe from others in the urban areas whom they did not know. Leaders enforced the rules, but they soon found it easier if they could get the former spirits of the rocks, clouds, etc., to become the chief enforcers and back them up. So the cities of Mesopotamia were able to exist for centuries without imploding. When their spirits (gods) lost the wars, they went under. But the first moses (Sargon) had laws that didn't say much about a god and neither did Hammurabi. They both predated the old testament figures in the middle east. So did the laws of the pharoahs of Egypt.
The 10 commandments of Moses are what we spend a great deal of time arguing about. They are very exactly religious, Huntress, only they belong to three religions, not just christianity, all founded from Abraham in this order: Judaism (God the Father), Christianity (Jesus) and Islam (Allah or God). What you are giving us is strictly the fundamentalist version which comes from unlearned men arguing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Morality is based on utility. Certain tribes in the past ate the brains of their brave enemies to catch the strength that brought them to be such heroes. Instead they caught Kuru, the first Mad Cow Disease. They thought they were doing a fine, purposeful (utile) thing instead of killing themselves. We have morals to enable us to live together. The problem we have in the current world is that religious-based morals are counter productive. They are not helping us live together in today's flat earth society. They are rigid up or down rules in a world that lives by a number of others that work for those who live by them, whether we like them or not.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home