The long impassioned and I suspect largely tongue-in-cheek discussion over at
The Daily Duck entitled "Objectively Moral," got me to break one of my own rules and that rule is not to get in on discussions demonstrating that high a level of erudition.
However, I have given the subject of morals some thought over the years. After all we were a non-church going family and I had to have something to tell my kids when they weren't doing the done thing. My line was, civilized people do or don't do whatever was the point I was making. When they were little, they had no idea who these vaunted civilized people were, but they caught on and I'm happy to say, they're living highly moral lives and teaching their kids to stay on the right path as well even though they're not church going either.
So I guess I a long time ago came to the conclusion that the argument often made that we would be lawless and immoral without a controlling deity isn't compelling.
We could have learned how to live what we define as moral lives the same way we learned everything else, trial and error. Our ancestors learned what worked and what didn't and those clans/family groups that didn't have some curbs on violent destructive behavior died out and those that did, thrived. Don't forget, we had tens of thousands, maybe millions of years to perfect what we call our moral code which morphed into common law. Divine revelation may not have been needed at all.
The notion of a heavenly father looking after us is harmless if it's a comfort to people, but as we've graphically seen, the big guy in the sky often demands blood sacrifice.
17 comments:
We could have learned how to live what we define as moral lives the same way we learned everything else, trial and error. Our ancestors learned what worked and what didn't [over tens of thousands of years].
While I don't disagree that "morals" merely reflect both human nature and whatever the contemporary local culture is, I also note that humans have had religion for all of those tens of thousands of years as well.
Without delving too deeply into the subject, my take is that there's a link. Societal morals and religion are not independent of each other, they spring from the same source and desires.
Yes erp, many folks think as you do today, probably most. Even within religion that is an increasingly dominant perspective. But whenever we get into this discussion at length over at the Daily Duck, the Duckians continually reduce the concept of morality to something akin to day-to-day order and civility, if not merely good manners. Frequently I am met with the argument that evolutionary trial and error explains perfectly well why I don't, say, punch out my neighbour on a whim on my way to work. I can buy that, but I never realized that was a major moral dilemma of our times.
The morality we are talking about is not the daily codes of conduct we follow rather unthinkingly, but rather the painful formative choices we must make a handful of times in our lives: Shall I have an abortion, sexually selected or otherwise?; Should I leave my family for a new love?; May I cheat one who has cheated me to get back what is mine? What is my obligation to my aging, sick parents or comotose members of my family?, etc. At a collective level, we have the rules of war, tolerance of our neighbours' strange faiths, capital punishment, etc. Seeing as mainstream views on almost all these items are quite different than even seventy years ago, how come we keep pretending we are all like traditional Chinese peasants drawing on the wisdom of our ancestors, or rather their genes?
The other point, erp, is that there is a rather glaring disconnect between this comforting, somewhat smug, theory and how we actually respond to moral challenges more and more today. Our bookstore shelves groan under the weight of self-help books that all say pretty much the same thing, that we must ignore everybody else, find the real "us" within and do what is right for us. We live in the age of personal authenticity and we really don't want to give gods or the ancestors the time of day. Don't you think it is awfully convenient to tell ourselves our morality is determined or guided by the examples or experiences of our ancestors from a very distant and shadowy past, but that the last people we should be beholden to are our parents and grandparents?
The other Duckian shibboleth is the beauty of the Golden Rule. I agree it is wonderfully inspiring but we are becoming so demanding and insistent about what we would have others do unto us that there isn't much space left for doing much of anything to them. Except perhaps shrugging at what they do and muttering: "Whatever".
Oro, I don't really have a take. I have no idea if there is a deity or not, my comment is that the argument made that without a divine revelation, we would have no reason to be altruistic, moral, courteous, etc. simply isn't compelling.
Funny thing, we watched 2001, a Space Odyssey the other night (I'd forgotten how boring it is) and I thought the monkey people cavorting and fighting at the start of the film perfectly exemplified my comment about trial and error and our early ancestors.
Peter, my only premise here is that our society could have evolved via trial and error without divine intervention or revelation. I still haven't come down on either side of the that issue and if I sound smug, I apologize. I admit to cynical, not smug.
After we have read the good books, listened to the learned and the sainted, only we can decide which path to take at every turn. When I was younger, I was much taken with Confucius. It seemed improbable that someone so far away in time and place, could see the world in such a similar way as those closer to home whose values I so admired. The honorable man in China was similar in my mind to medieval knights and English gentlemen of auld whose honor was inviolate. I would have liked to live in times like that. The best we can do now, is live honorable lives ourselves and teach our kids to do likewise.
"I would have liked to live in times like that. "
Did they have flush toilets?
No?
Then not me.
Point well taken.
Now, erp, if you are going to break your rules and jump into this stuff, you have to know how the game is played. Being accused of holding a smug opinion is in no way a personal accusation of smugness. Indeed, we of the PJA all believe one another's opinions are dangerous, cowardly, cold, hate-mongering views that will lead directly to genocide and the collapse of the West, but that to a man we are the warmest, kindest, most responsible folks you could ever find.
Aren't men special?
Special in that they don't LISTEN to what women say. How can admitting to not knowing which point of view is true, be smug? Not to worry, I don't take offense. After a lifetime of not being listened to, I've not only gotten used to it, but I've learned to look to it as the norm.
It's interesting that in all the strings about religion and morality in the PJA and at the bros blog, the notion of evil (not sociopathy) hasn't, to my knowledge, been broached. I believe it exists in human form, but I'm not so sure that the source is the devil or any otherworldly realm. Any thoughts?
Although I'm religious, I don't think that there is a supernatural wellspring for evil.
It's just that there is a spectrum of possible behaviors, and only some of them are "good". The opposite end is "evil", with a gray area inbetween.
Which is why only mammals can be evil; the lower orders can be savage, but they don't choose their behaviors.
By evil I don't mean bad behavior such as violence or murder. I mean evil such as changes the physiognomy of the person when they suddenly go into what I call the "fugue" state. Their eyes change color and shape and project unqualified hate. It's very scary and definitely not in the normal spectrum of behavior.
Do I have thoughts on evil? How many do you want?
I'm drowning at work for the next week, but hopefully we'll get a good rhubarb going somewhere on this one soon. For starters, there is nothing the modern mind will resist more strongly and desperately than the notion that there is such a thing. OTOH, that we are all naturally "good" is fast becoming a universal belief. I've never been able to figure out how you can have one without the other, but then as my kids keep telling me, I'm not with the programme.
Peter, I'm not talking about good and bad. I don't know if people are innately good, the old tabula rasa, or they're innately bad, the old original sin meme.
I'm talking evil that has no opposite number unless it's saintly, but I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Kids? Expect them to make you proud and they will. Trust me on this.
Oroborous, Peter:
Your collective argument boils down to the atheism of the elites. There are ways of acting that are preferable to others, but the masses won't toe the line without a totalitarian supreme being as the ultimate enforcer.
For all I know, that might be right.
But as I posited in Objectively Moral, the assertion that moral behavior is possible only due to whichever supreme being the assertor pays obeisance resembles a vacuum in its emptiness.
So empty, I don't recall anyone even attempting to use objective morality to condemn the behavior of the polygamists.
Peter:
Duckians continually reduce the concept of morality to something akin to day-to-day order and civility, if not merely good manners.
Wrong.
The morality we are talking about is not the daily codes of conduct we follow rather unthinkingly, but rather the painful formative choices we must make a handful of times in our lives ...
Those, just as much as the day - day kind, are precisely the kind of moral decisions we Duckians have in mind.
As well, we have in mind the ostensibly moral decisions that would be immoral in any other context except the religious.
If one desires to take credit for objective morality, one had best be prepared to take the blame, as well.
The other Duckian shibboleth is the beauty of the Golden Rule.
I prefer the concept of the symmetry argument -- if the table was turned 180 degrees, then what would your take be? (NB: the Declaration of Independence's claim that we are all entitled to the Big 3 is really the symmetry argument, exquisitely worded.
The problem with your dismissing it as a shibboleth is that you fail to show in which case(s) -- including, most conspicuously, your list of rare, but paramount, moral decisions -- it would fail.
[erp said]"I would have liked to live in times like that. "
[bret said] Did they have flush toilets?
Or painless dentistry?
Then not for me, either.
BTW, erp, here is a headline from the local rag which, together with the story, sums up nicely our modern mass confusion about what evil is and how to talk about it.
That isn't evil, it's laziness combined with a lack of supervision combined with the union mentality combined with ...
Socialism is bad, but evil is much worse.
How do we know that the creation of religion wasn't part of the trial and error that lead to functional moralities? Perhaps all the atheist societies died out because they weren't sustainable. When you see something as universal as religion, the default opinion should be that it's vitally important.
We don't know. That's my point.
Post a Comment