I think it’s a fair point to ask where atheists get their moral codes from. Are they just making it up as they go along? Some of them are but some of them are clearly not. There is quite a substantial literature on this that you may want to read. Indeed the last 40 years of western political and ethical philosophy has primarily been about this. If I were you I’d start with John Rawls and work my through Robert Nozick and Ronald Dworkin, and their critics of course - I’m sure you’re aware of Michael Sandel and the greatest living Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (MacIntyre talks a lot about the ought-is problem, which of course was first raised by David Hume, an atheist). When you’ve read Rawls, Dworkin and their critics you may not change your mind but you’ll certainly sound much less shrill in your next blog post.
...
As a parting thought I think it may be a mistake to use slavery as your example of supreme evil. I agree that slavery is wrong but I say it’s wrong because it debases human beings and uses them as a means to other people’s ends. I don’t need a book to tell me this. Indeed your book tells me the opposite. I’ve never heard a believer yet explain away the evil document that is Exodus 21.

Word Salad.

You claim to have a source of object morality….I call shenanigans.  Show us compelling evidence for the existence of this source.  How come we can’t get tickets for the Friday night witch burnings?  How about a front row seat to the conversions prompted by the Grand Inquisitor?

Yeah,Right: I didn’t hear Mr Shea say morality is “objective.” He said it’s true. Moral truth doesn’t come from objects. That’s the whole point of the article. Maybe you should re-read it.
God is not your Grand Inquisitor. He is not a thing susceptible to the sort of evidence that would compel someone who wants to deny him.
You can make your little thought box, but you have no right to pout because God will not jump into it at your command.

I suspect that when you say you have a “transcendent grounding for morality” what this means in practice is you believe you should do what theologians and other interpreters of scripture tell you to do. Why you have any grounds for believing that these people know any better than secular moral philosophers I don’t know.

You might consider that if the religious haven’t cracked it in several thousand years of recorded history it might be time for a new paradigm.

As for waving abolition around as a Christian achievement you might consider why it took Christians so many centuries to get there and why it was achieved only after Christianity began to decline in the West. Perhaps there was another cause or causes which arrived on the scene not long before abolition?

ppeter,

I think you may be out of your depth.  Objective morality is the idea that morality is based on an immutable source (I.E. a supreme being).

The Grand Inquisitor is a reference to the Spanish Inquisition, where the clergy presumably with morality defined by a supreme being committed truly horrendous immoral acts.

If you make that clam that morality is based on God then you should provide evidence to substantiate that claim.  Without evidence of that the grounding exists, it’s just another name for subjective morality.

Yeah, Right:

Whenever *I* investigate the history of inquisitions, I find that local politics and grudges seem to underlie a lot more of it (and being clergy doesn’t automatically make people insusceptible), and religion is just a cover.  I was actually quite suprised to learn that Rome wanted to allow appeals—but Ferdinand and Isabella apparently wouldn’t have any of that.

enness,

How does that play into the idea of objective morality?  It only serves to highlight that morality is subjective contrary to claims otherwise.

@adrian mckinty: The question is not where atheists get their moral codes from. The question is why any atheist believes any code can possibly claim, even in principle, any moral authority over anyone. The question is whether “That is wrong” can possibly be construed to refer to any actual state of affairs beyond “I don’t like that.”
 
@Yeah, Right: What are you trying to say, friend? Do you acknowledge right and wrong or not?
 
@Gordon Hide: You’ve misinterpreted Mark’s argument. It is not an argument regarding moral authority, but the authority of morality. Mark is not arguing that we ought to listen to scripture or theologians. He’s asking on what grounds we can possibly claim that anyone “ought to” do anything at all.

Analogies are dangerous.  You wrote “They have been carried up the ladder of morality by their Christian ancestors and now are in the process of kicking down the ladder and throwing a torch downstairs”.

Well, alchemy was once the framework on which chemistry in the West was built.  Humans kicked that “ladder” out from under them and made huge progress once they had abandoned superstition.  So religion may have been the framework of moral thought in many cultures, particularly in the West, for many years, but it never was the only game in town.  It is another “ladder” of superstition that we can do away with in order to make greater progress.

What’s more, we have already done so.

Slavery is the best example I can think of.  If religion provided a reliable moral framework, owning another human being would have been outlawed by religious rules.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the ten commandments would have included the words “Thou shalt not own slaves.”

But, no.  Religions failed for millennia to recognize basic human rights.

Thus you can see that good moral reasoning is not a characteristic of religion, although being moral is often a goal of many religious individuals who frame their moral discussion around their religious views.

However, religion is far from being the only framework for moral discussion.  Moreover, it is a poor framework for universal moral discussion, because not everyone agrees on which religion to follow.

A framework for morality must be secular in order to have any hope of being universal.

@ ARL: FWIW, slavery was a universal practice found in human cultures throughout history and all over the world until, for the first time in history, a principled effort to abolish it was mounted—by members of a historically Christian culture, using expressly religious arguments.

That said, you seem to be arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying that religion automatically means that everyone will understand and follow the moral law. Nor is anyone saying that morality requires everyone to agree on a particular religion, or that it depends on a particular set of religious guidelines.

You say “A framework for morality must be secular in order to have any hope of being universal.” I ask: What does a secular moral framework MEAN? Within a secular context, what does “That is wrong” MEAN other than “I don’t like that”?

@Steven D. Greydanus
No I didn’t misinterpret what Mark said. I also think there is very little mileage in the “is/aught” question, (at least for us ordinary folk). I was referring to his supposed “transcendent grounding for morality” and how he might, in practical terms, believe he makes his moral decisions.

Mark Shea, I have been reading your blogs for about 10 years, I must say you get better and better!

“@Yeah, Right: What are you trying to say, friend? Do you acknowledge right and wrong or not? “

I’m trying to say the whole article is bunk.  Making a claim to objective morality without proving that the objective basis for that morality exists is pointless.  When even fervent followers who believe in the source for that morality as fact fail to ascribe to it…the whole argument becomes a load of bunk because it fails to adhere to reality.

Morality by definition is subjective.

“Morality by definition is subjective”

This observation of yours, is it subjective or objective?

Let’s see, it took exactly two comments to get a reference to witch burnings and the Spanish Inquisition.  If only they had thrown something in about sex abuse, they could have had the trifecta of oh so original slams at Catholics.  (insert eye roll)

Yeah, Right: I know it’s hard to get out of the thought box you have constructed, but all the rambling on about “objective” and “subjective” gets you nowhere. Morality is true, yet it is subjective, not in the sense that each subject makes it up for himself, but in the sense that it arises between subjects and can only be rightly grasped by a virtuous subject.
Rocks don’t have morality. Persons do.
If you’re coming from a positivist preconception of persons being just things, you’re not going to be able to grasp morality, because it won’t be forced into your “objective” categories (persons=rocks).

@ Gordon Hide: You say “I also think there is very little mileage in the “is/[o]ught” question, (at least for us ordinary folk).” I don’t know what this means.

Perhaps I am an ordinary person. Like everyone else, I experience the phenomenon that is often called conscience. Sometimes my conscience seems to oppose things I would otherwise like to do, or to commend things I would otherwise not want to do. I also see other people behaving in ways that contradict what my conscience tells me, and also sometimes what they tell me their own conscience tells them.

I am aware that some people think that conscience is a faculty that, like reason or sense perception, offers us real though not necessarily infallible access to some sort of moral truth or reality. Other people, on the other hand, think that conscience is only an internal event inside oneself, like a preference for whiskey rather than vodka.

Surely which of the two one thinks is the case has obvious practical consequences?

@Yeah, Right: Let me get this straight.

Let’s suppose your conscience tells you that you ought to be kind to children and dumb animals. Meanwhile, another man’s conscience tells them that it’s reasonable and natural for him to molest children. Still another man’s conscience assures him that taking a machete to his neighbor is the thing to do.

Meanwhile, in the animal world, ducks rape ducks, chimps kill and cannibalize other chimps, and the world goes on.

All of these events are simply events, and whatever disgust or distaste you feel about any of this is merely a subjective fact about yourself, no different from or truer than me getting queasy at the thought of eating haggis, not that there’s anything wrong with someone else liking it.

Is that your position?

“If I am capable of killing you or an entire race, particularly if I can get away with it, then no one can say that I have done a wrong. It would be absurd to say so.” (Nietzsche)

Is Nietzsche wrong? Or rather, if you do say “That would be wrong,” are you expressing anything important about anything? Or are you merely expressing an electro-bio-chemical event inside yourself, like “Artichokes are tasty” or “Escargot is gross”?

Steven D. Greydanus,

Nope.  I’m saying that morality is subjective.  There is *no* source for morality,  it is an agreed upon set of guidelines between society members.  This scenario is demonstrable vis a vis Witch Burnings, The Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, etc.  Society has come to the conclusion that those were not moral actions and revised what is considered moral.  The idea that there is a *source* for morality isn’t representative in reality.  If you grew up a Aztec human sacrifice would seem perfectly moral.  If you grew up a Catholic and entered into the Priesthood, covering up paedophilia to save the Church from bad press would seem perfectly moral.

I went to the store, bought some salt (NaCl), some calcium and potassium tablets, and asked them if there was right or wrong (to which of course there was no reply).  Seemed rather senseless to me, but the belief that these biological chemicals are the basis of morality is just as absurd.

“This scenario is demonstrable vis a vis Witch Burnings, The Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, etc.  Society has come to the conclusion that those were not moral actions and revised what is considered moral.

Which means that they were moral at the time?

@ Yeah, Right: I see. What you really mean is “People’s ideas about morality are culturally conditioned.” You apparently haven’t yet come to grips with the question of whether any particular forms of cultural conditioning get anyone nearer or further from the truth, or rather, whether there is a truth to be any nearer to or further from.

If you grew up in the Middle Ages, you would have believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything else revolved around it. If you grew up in the 18th century, you might have believed that ether provided an absolute frame of reference for motion. And if you grew up in certain circles of the 20th century, you might believe that the mediaevals thought the world was flat.

Most people who have thought these things have absorbed them through cultural conditioning, and all of them are inferior to other, better ideas that can also be acquired through cultural conditioning. So merely noting that ideas are culturally conditioned, although true, is not particularly relevant to the question whether any ideas are any truer than any others.

When you say that the perspective I outlined in my last comment is not your position, is that only because you were saying something else, or because you disagree with it? If you disagree, how and why do you disagree?

Also, what Colin said. If morality is merely whatever society considers moral, then is ethnic cleansing moral if society says so? Were the early Christian abolitionists who rejected society’s endorsement of slavery “wrong” to do so? Or is the whole question of right and wrong meaningless?

For anyone interested:  The inquisition comes up again and again as a weapon against Catholics.  If you want ammunition of your own, I suggest the following:

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

Great post… a bulls-eye.  Kant could not have said it better or more eloquently.  The time for arguing with self righteous and self-blinded atheists is over, as the time draws near and there are more pressing matters to attend.

@yeah right:

“There is *no* source for morality, it is an agreed upon set of guidelines between society members”

But if morality is just subjective and agreed upon by members of a society, which would mean an elite class of lawmakers and value makers using their own subjective morality to dictate to the masses, who says that their collective morality is better than mine?

If morality is truly subjective, then my moral values are just as right as yours, even a collective group of people, regardless of how many people voted on and appointed certain values to be the norm.

What you say is nonsense. If morality is subjective, that would mean my morality is just as right as yours, then I would be justified in doing what I thought morally good, whether it would be murdering someone or stealing millions of dollars. It’s my morality; it’s what’s right for me, regardless of what other people think. If morality is truly subjective, who are you to say my values are wrong or immoral?

You are confusing values with value opinions. Cultures have “value opinions.”

Excellent post, Mark. All of these dissenting commenters, seem to have a serious problem understanding meta-ethics. Even when they say that morality is subjective, they want to have it both ways, assuming objective moral reality to condemn the Church with.

What fascinates me with the whole “all morality is just cultural conditioning” thing is that it doesn’t seem to occur to guys like YR that it doesn’t account for why any particular morality is better than any other.  The atheists here write in high moral dudgeon about the evils of, say, Exodus 21.  Where did they get the conviction that slavery is wrong?  Why is their view superior.  Against what scale of progress are they measuring?  Also, if it’s all conditioning, then whence comes change.  The lived experience of conscience is not that we look at a slave being whipped at the pillar and say, “Yes.  I have no qualms about this for my culture says it’s good.”  Rather it is one of deep interior conflict.  Himmler went to view a mass killing once and got brains splattered on him.  He became visibly ill and had to be hustled away.  Despite his own herculean efforts to muscle it down, his conscience bothered him because there are certain things we can’t not know, whatever our society and culture may say.  That doesn’t mean we know what we ought to do about it.  Those living in the slave culture of 19th century American were assailed by their consciences but didn’t know what to do.  Those living in Bronze Age Israel likewise had qualms of conscience about slavery (deliverance from which is, after all, the entire point of the Exodus). But slavery, like, say, abortion today, was the universal “way things are” for them.  So they structured their society as best they could to cope with that universally accepted fact of life, while still being troubled enough by it that provisions are made for the treatment and even the liberation of slaves within the strictures that fallen human culture allowed.  The notion that Exodus, of all books, show a human conscience utterly untroubled by the universal acceptance of slavery is a particularly illiterate and fundamentalist reading.

“Ought” has very little meaning today because it involves an act of will.  Most moral judgments bathed in subjectivism involve victimhood, negativity, doubt, fear and inaction. Something outside is imposing a chemical footprint on a receptive and essentially inert “subject.”  Truth, ironically, demands adherence to the truth - an active and vigorous participation.  This kind of Truth pays off truth-seekers with every kind of benefit - eternal life.  Those who forego the “quest” descend into a kind of entropy, where even the ability to form coherent arguments, or to write an effective english sentence, end in the vocabules “inquisition, “burned at the stake,” or “pedophilia.”  Contrarily, those who believe in and follow objective truth live in a rich, full, varied, nuanced and delightful world - forevermore.  I’m sharing this message with you because I don’t want even dumbed down atheists to be devoid of the stunning life, the amazing life, that truth conveys to its seekers.  Amen?

A lot of people who misunderstand scripture have come to erroneous conclusions regarding the objective truth because they have taken a small portion of the Bible and greatly misinterpreted it.  The key definition of truth found in scripture is: Truth is what you’re willing to die for.  This is not a great arcane mystery, and is not hidden like some Jabez backwater text.  It receives broad visual acknowledgment in every Christian church, and explicit sacramental definition in every act of Christian worship.  The problem with atheists understaning this is that they deny that there is ANYTHING worth dying for.  Therefore they deny all truth.  Their skepticm is thus revealed for what it is: cowardice.  Their blustery philosophy: rationalization.  Their doubt: fear.

The simple fact of the matter is that claims to a supreme being being the source or cause of morality are bunk.  You can theorize all day but when it comes to those theories aligning with reality they fail.  No matter how you spin it morality isn’t objective or transcendent, the whole of history stands as evidence.  I’ll wait about for a real world example and/or compelling evidence.  Pontificating, rewording and believing hard enough just doesn’t change reality.

“What fascinates me with the whole “all morality is just cultural conditioning” thing is that it doesn’t seem to occur to guys like YR that it doesn’t account for why any particular morality is better than any other.”

LOL, says the guy contemplating why *HIS* version of morality is superior….pure irony.

@Yeah, Right: Mark’s version of morality ALLOWS him to say that some versions of morality are better than others. And yours doesn’t, so far as I can tell, given the fact that you haven’t really explained what your version of morality is, and probably can’t. So Mark is being consistent, and you aren’t. If it strikes you as “ironic” that other people are consistent and explain what they believe, and you don’t and aren’t, well, we can add “ironic” to your list of things that are purely subjective.

You’re on pretty shaky ground with the slavery thing, the xtian religions used scripture to condone slavery, to claim that religion was responsible for the abolition of slavery is not simply not true.

I’m currently reading the Autobiography of Mark Twain and in talking about his childhood he says (page 212):

In my schoolboy days I had no aversion to slavery. I was not aware that there was anything wrong about it. No one arraigned it in my hearing; the local papers said nothing against it; the local pulpit taught us that God approved it, that it was a holy thing, and that the doubter need only look in the Bible if he wished to settle his mind – and then the texts were read aloud to us to make the matter sure; if the slaves themselves had an aversion to slavery they were wise and said nothing.

@Steven D. Greydanus
Conscience consists of a number unpleasant feelings which may assail you when you believe you have done something “wrong” or have made a provisional decision to do something wrong. These feelings you mainly owe to your genes but also to your cultural conditioning. What you consider to be “wrong” depends on the moral code you adhere to which is also a matter of genes, cultural conditioning and past experience of making moral decisions and observing their consequences.
I wouldn’t say that conscience “offers us real though not necessarily infallible access to some sort of moral truth or reality” but I would say our feelings and instincts have been honed in the school of hard knocks for millions of years. They operated when we were creatures of little rational capability. If they had not been up to the job we wouldn’t be here to talk about it now.

And you probably want to stay away from that Himmler dude, self professed Catholic from Catholic family and all round moral relativist.

Refresh my memory, when did the Catholic church excommunicate that guy ?

You’d think genocide would be almost as serious as ordaining women priests.

Tell me more about Catholic morality, it’s simply fascinating.

@steve oberski: You don’t read very well, do you, friend?

@Gordon Hide: The “school of hard knocks” teaches all sorts of lessons. Compassion and cooperation can be successful strategies. So can ruthlessness and egoism. If conscience is only an inherited warning indicator of potential risk, it makes sense to take it under advisement, but there’s no reason to privilege it above all other interests.

There is absolutely no reason, for instance, to risk one’s life for someone else. The instinct that moves me to do so is only the legacy of a shared gene that benefited one of my ancestors because a related ancestor lost his or her life due to the same semi-suicidal gene. I can be grateful that my ancestor survived rather than the other man, but it would be stupid and contrary to my self-interest to do likewise.

Conversely, if I can sabotage my colleague’s career in order to benefit myself, if I can seduce or rape my neighbor’s wife and get away with it, if I can kill my enemy without undue risk of social sanction, why should I not do so, in your view?

Princeton ethicist Peter Singer thinks that killing babies as old as a year or so is ethically acceptable in principle (though for practical reasons he would confine it to a month). What would you say to that?

@Matt B
Most of the brave will sacrifice themselves for any cause they deem to be more important than their personal existence. That includes atheists. Whether they define such causes as “true” I don’t know. A cause is a cause not a truth claim I would have thought. And by the way the only valid generalisation to be made about atheists is that they all lack a belief in gods.

Yeah, Right - you’re completely hung up on the exaggerated truth claims of “science,” and a narrow vision of empirical evidence.  You claim everything you don’t understand or can’t accept is “bunk.”  But religious truth has a much longer history, and a much deeper percipience than scientific truth.  Modern science is just a callow youth struggling with interpretative tasks suitable for a youngster.  Religion is old, wise and vastly more experienced.  Your impertinence betrays ignorance, your scepticism masks an unsatisfactory knowledge of the facts.  But I don’t blame you.  Ignorance has a deep hold in America today.  You’re just a child of your place and time.

“Mark’s version of morality ALLOWS him to say that some versions of morality are better than others. And yours doesn’t, so far as I can tell, given the fact that you haven’t really explained what your version of morality is, and probably can’t”

What part of it being *subjective* do you have a issue with.  It being subjective means that IMMORALITY is in the eye of the beholder. The simple fact that we are having this conversation precludes objective morality as anything but fanciful thinking.

Gordon, It could be that some atheists are brave enough to die for someone or something.  But I would claim that such an act or attitude is incipient religious faith, the beginning of a realization that God exists, and a first step towards belief and worship.  I hazard to speculate in this way because by it’s very nature self-sacrifice entails subordination of selfish wants to the good of another.  This is the fundamental religious act.  Anything else would be mere self-destructive risk taking and adventurism - nihilistic acts that really don’t count.

@Yeah, Right: If immorality is in the eye of the beholder then it is equivalent to taste. Haggis looks gross to me but some people love it. I love sushi but it’s nauseating to other people. Different strokes for different folks, right? And the same with rape, genocide, sabotaging my coworker’s career to benefit myself, etc. You might not like my immoral acts, but that’s just a fact about your disposition, is that it? Is that your view? I’ve been asking you this question again and again. For some reason you seem to be having a hard time answering it. What part of subjective morality do you have a problem owning up to?

Yeah, Right - You asked for one real world example of the objective basis of morality.  Here it is: the Crucifixion of Jesus as attested to by all four gospels of the New Testament.  Moreover, Christian tradition has held to the accuracy and truth of these accounts in an unbroken oral tradition for the last 2000 years.  The death of Jesus is an historical fact, as much as Madame Curie’s discovery of radium or Pasteur’s petri dish - and far more life-giving and radiant.

The significance of this event is that it formulated succinctly the moral obligation of all human beings.  “The law of love” is the basis for all moral reasoning, and the goal to which all moral behavior tends.  A careful analysis shows that this action, and this law underlie every moral act.

These are facts, even if you can’t understand or don’t see.  I don’t see radio waves either, but my cell phone attests to their presence.  You may even protest that my belief in the divinity of Christ vitiates my claims about His death.  I suggest to you, by way of a challenge: if you open yourself up to my assertion, and “see” the overwhelming presence of this law of love in every virtuous, holy and good act -  performed by anyone on earth at any time - you too will bow down and worship.

@Gordon Hide: “Most of the brave will sacrifice themselves for any cause they deem to be more important than their personal existence. That includes atheists.” What does “important” mean in this sentence?

@Steven D. Greydanus You don’t understand evolution very well, do you ?

You don’t get to cherry pick bronze age mythology and then pretend you understand altruism, kin selection and eusociality.

Slavery was condoned by religion, it was secular, atheistic, enlightenment values that resulted in it’s abolition. In the American south, one of the last bastions of slavery, it was religion that opposed abolition of slavery and provided moral support to slave owners.

Not one Nazi was excommunicated for war crimes. Meanwhile Ratzinger rescinds the excommunication of holocaust denier Richard Williamson, a British bishop, who claims that historical evidence “is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed.”

I’m not the one that brought up Nazi war criminals, but if ever an organization jumped into bed with fascist regimes, be it Hitler, Mussolini or Franco, it was the catholic church.

It’s not obvious what Mark Shea’s point was with Himmler and the brains (in fact it’s not obvious what any of his points are), but if there is any better example of what irrational belief in dogma can lead to, the entirely Catholic manufactured antisemitism of the Nazi party as typified by Himmler and the like can not be beat.

My daughter was raped, bible says he must now marry her. Not my ideal SIL.  Got called into work last Sunday, stoning should be any time now. Show me where slavery was frowned upon. Great moral code you got going here. 

Another flaming inane post. I’m out.

Yeah, Right: right again.

I wonder why someone cannot have an entirely egoistic pragmatic morality that is, in terms of actions, completely or at least mostly indistinct from the Christian morality.
—-
It would be constructed this way:
There is no objective or absolute morality. There is only that I want what is best for me, what will make me happy. Therefore I consider who in the human race is happy. I discover that Christians, Jews, Muslims and some other religious segments of humanity are the most happy. There may be a variety of reasons for this, but one of them is that the Christian moral law is a moral law that is, on the whole, so aligned with human nature, that it brings about a great human happiness. Therefore I decide to act as a Christian would, not because of any of the metaphysical baggage, but purely out of a desire to be happy.
—-
What about the act of self-sacrifice? These I consider to be prudential suicides. It is typically better to live than to die. However, living with the knowledge that you could have done some great good, but refused to, may be far more miserable than death, and therefore the most self-interested decision is self-sacrifice.
—-
Granted, motivation is different, but day-to-day, and even big decisions and actions are the same. This is the way I lead my life now that I have lost my faith, and I have noticed that my happiness has even increased, and that I am very content with my life, except in that one place I believe I will ever want to be content: the pursuit of the nature of the universe, and the pursuit of the good of my wife and children.

Steve Oberski - it’s clear you’re a prisoner of the zeitgeist.  Have you ever read a book that’s been written before 1960?  I’m guessing you have a good education as well - in a worldly sense.  You’ve ingested every anti-Catholic bigotry and half-truth there is.  I suggest you pick up a copy of 1984 and turn straight to the last paragraphs, where Orwell says of Winston Smith, “at last…he loved Big Brother.”  Your professors have set up the Church/the Pope/Catholicism as the authoritarian bad guy in their pathetic alternative script.  But after you come through the syphillitic haze of your misinformation, you too may come to love “Big Brother.”  I pray for it.

@steve oberski: “You don’t get to cherry pick bronze age mythology and then pretend you understand altruism, kin selection and eusociality.”
 
Because Richard Dawkins will give me a wedgie? Arguments please, friend.
 
“Slavery was condoned by religion, it was secular, atheistic, enlightenment values that resulted in it’s abolition.”
 
Riiight. Let’s go. William Wilberforce. Your turn.
 
“Not one Nazi was excommunicated for war crimes.” (a) So what? What exactly are you implying? That your palate recoils as if I were eating haggis and you didn’t like haggis? What does that have to do with the question at hand? (b) Why were 40,000 Dutch citizens of Jewish descent deported in the Netherlands after July 11, 1942? What happened on that date? Etc.

@rover serton: You say “Great moral code you got going here.” As compared to what?

The bronze age mythology thing is a pretty clear indication that someone is so callow in their youth and inexperience as to be pretty much inconsiderable in their opinions.  As I’ve aged, and grown in my relationships, my profession and my skin, I find that anything later than bronze age is way too recent to believe, or really count on.  Give me old wine, traditional pleasures, and the golden age, any day!

Steven:  Animals show a moral code, they have no god.  Social animals (of which we are the top one) know, to live in a society, there must be certain things that are ok and some that aren’t.  If your biblical teaching is the only reason you don’t kill, steal and rape, I’m scared of you.

Moral code of social animals has evolved into us. If social animals kill each other too often, they go extinct.

Interesting in this article “Get rid of the Christian tradition and the mystical insistence that human beings are creatures made in the image and likeness of God for whom Christ died and you will not get a post-modern civilization of free and equal human beings all living in clean human habitat spaces filled with IKEA furniture, humane treatments of dogs, and green, well-planned urban spaces with internet access, recycling, consequence-free sex lives, and Star Trek-style conflict-resolution counselors in leotards”

Wow, I stand corrected, my consequence-free sex life is due to the Christian tradition. The recycling is just a bonus. 

Sorry, quoting the fool/no god in the title is just atheist baiting.

epic fail.

Rover

@rover serton: “Animals show a moral code, they have no god.” Like I said, animals teach us all sorts of lessons. Ducks rape ducks. Chimps murder and cannibalize other chimps. What was it you said? “Great moral code you got going here.” Back at you, friend.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that some animals exhibit behavior that, to us, looks like something like some versions of a moral code among humans. Even so, animals do not engage in comparative morality. Animals don’t argue for or against moral judgments. Animals don’t criticize the moral judgments of others. So what exactly do you think animal behavior proves? Only that animals do what animals do. You are an animal, Mother Teresa is another, Hitler is another. So what?

“If your biblical teaching is the only reason you don’t kill, steal and rape, I’m scared of you.” Does your fear mean anything? A chimp that doesn’t want to be killed might be scared of a chimp that is about to kill it. So what?

You’ve misunderstood, of course. Even though I’ve never once in this combox appealed to the Bible and have explicitly said that the issue is not religious authority, you haven’t understood what I’m saying. That seems to be par for the course. I don’t know why atheists have such a hard time understanding the issue, but I’m used to it by now.

Steven:

Did the OT have the rapist marry his victim?

Did the OT tell to kill those that gather wood on the sabath?

Read your last paragraph out loud and you’ll understand why I don’t understand what you are saying.

You make an interesting point: Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that animals exhibit behavior that, to us, looks like some kind of moral code. Nevertheless, animals do not engage in comparative morality. Animals don’t argue for or against moral judgments. Animals don’t criticize the moral judgments of others.

I have to agree with you, with the exception of Mr Ed and Wilber the pig, animals don’t compare, talk or criticize. Seriously? You really wrote that? 

You don’t agree that social animals exhibit social skills for the advantage of the herd?  Morality is for the advantage of the herd (us).

The analogy to animals is a favorite with darwinists.  Their logical conclusion is that man is just a super animal: bigger cranium, opposable digits, but not essentially different from the herd.  This is a sad misunderstanding, contrary to scripture and really quite subversive in the world view of darwinists.  God gave us animals for our use, not to control us.  It may be interesting to note the brutal or self-serving or gregarious behaviors of the countless animal species, but we as humans are qualitatively, not just quantitatively different.  Darwinism places a lid on our potential and our destiny.  The higher qualities, the virtues, uniquely human aspirations - are all reduced to instinctual longings.  This is a grave sin.  To get some idea of the higher potential of man, we need to examine God, the angels and the saints.  By the way, it is not correct to say that animals have no God.  They do - He is God.  In this way, they stand to an advantage over materialists.  They serve him instinctively, while materialists squander their infinte potential by rebellion.

@rover serton: Why are you bringing up the OT? Have I mentioned the OT? At this early stage in the discussion we aren’t within a million miles of the questions you’re raising. It’s like we’re asking “Is language meaningful?” and you want to know about this or that line in Shakespeare or the King James Bible. One thing at a time.

“I have to agree with you, with the exception of Mr Ed and Wilber the pig, animals don’t compare, talk or criticize.” Good. Then on what basis do you criticize anyone else’s morality?

“You don’t agree that social animals exhibit social skills for the advantage of the herd?  Morality is for the advantage of the herd (us).” Science tells me that animals sometimes act for the advantage of the herd and sometimes act for their own advantage, but this behavior does not always accord with what we humans would recognize as morality. Perhaps when a drake rapes a duck, that benefits the herd, or the species. Perhaps when one band of chimps kills and cannibalizes another, that benefits their band. When Hutus committed genocide against Tutsis, perhaps that benefited Hutus. These are fascinating observations but so far I still can’t imagine what you meaning you might ascribe to words like “ought” and “should.”

Dear Atheists:

Much of your efforts in this combox so far is aimed at straw men because you misunderstand the argument being made here. Many of you seem to think the argument takes something like this form, at least implicitly: “Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, so therefore listen to the Bible, or to the Church, etc.” That is not the argument on offer here. The sooner that is internalized, the more productive discussion here will be.

It’s really unfortunate for non-believers to read scripture, and by that I mean those whose intent is to denigrate and disparage the Holy Books.  The reason I’m saying this is not out of some reflexive impulse to defend God and Holy things from vulgar use.  I’m really more concerned about what will happen as a result of the misuse of sacred things.  When some ignorant person throws scripture passages around in a threatening and accusatory way, he or she is inviting judgment and damnation on themselves.  In the very best of circumstances, where a later conversion redeems the formerly sacriligious person, that person’s misuse of scripture, sacramentals and sacraments, or as in the case of St. Paul, his misuse of the Saints themselves, will cause a bitter and deep regret.  I trust all those who contribute to this string in a spirit of envy and opposition, and who make poor use of revelation, into the abyss of Divine Mercy, who said “bring me hardened sinners, for to these belong the unfathomable depths of my mercy, more than to all others.”  Amen!

I am not attacking anything. I made a proposed way for an atheist or agnostic (more the agnostic) to accept a moral framework that will, in its activity, be identical or nearly identical to Christian morals. What do you think of this system?

It lacks leverage.  For man to do heroic things, he needs a focus or fulcrum outside of himself.  For man to do immortal or eternal things, he needs infinite leverage.  You claim to love your wife and your children, which involves self-giving.  Is the self you donate a mere “human animal?” or endowed with a divine spark.  Similarly, is there something in your loved ones that transcends self-interest or conceit?  After you’ve performed this analysis or inventory, examine true human greatness, and consider - did this arise from enlightened self-interest, or sacrificial self-giving; and from whence did the quality of immense greatness arise.

Steven:

“why do you bring up the OT?”  Excellent question.  Where do you get the “moral code” if not the OT?  Everyone wants the 10 commandments (OT btw) posted in every court room and public space but never, Jesus’s “the most important of these, love one another”.  Tell me your “moral code” that isn’t OT.

You don’t know much about duck breeding btw, (for Mallards at least):Mallards usually form pairs (in October and November) only until the female lays eggs at the start of nesting season which is around the beginning of spring (early March to late May), at which time she is left by the male who will join up with other males to await the molting period which begins in June. Rape? Citation needed.  Chimps killing an eating chimps? Citation needed. (2001, a space odyssey doesn’t count).

“ought” and “should”,a distiction without a difference or semantics. Your choice.

Steven, rover - the scenes of chimp warfare are pretty common “animal planet” fare.  And I’ve witnessed during my pondside days the depradations of mating waterfowl.  It happens.  But I’m glad to know that these are the definitive crux of the argument, and now they’re resolved.  All that stuff about the transcendant nature of Christ’s sacrifice, the truth claims of science versus (much more ancient) religious traditions, the psychological underpinnings of materialism, heroic self-sacrifice and abnegation, the focus of man’s longing being outside or within himself, the relative probative value of ancient versus modern literature, and the whole Indiana Jones thing about robbing temples - all that nonessential stuff can go back on the shelf for another day.  But at least I’ll be prepared when my 5-year old asks me “Daddy, what are those ducks doing?” Pax Vobiscum

Matt B: 

“It’s really unfortunate for non-believers to read scripture”.  Actually, it was best when only the priests and scribes could read so that they could tell the flock what the bible meant.  Now, anyone that can google search can find something to support any position desired from the bible.

“For man to do heroic things, he needs a focus or fulcrum outside of himself”  There are atheist heros i.e. Pat Tillman.  What exactly was your point?  I love my wife and kids, no supernational being needed.

Sorry all, I had a very bad experience with a Nun today, I’m kind of “out of sorts”.

Time for bed, I’ll check in tomorrow. 

Rover.

I have begun to wonder if the atheists posting here have even thought through the implications of the view of subjective morality.  All these postings about herd mentality and whatnot confirm that when morality is proposed to be subjective, the ability to condemn any action as immoral is essentially to hate someone for a particular choice of lifestyle.  If I decide to become a mass murder, what does it matter?  I am beholden to no morality other than what I define.

Steven:

They’re not getting it.  Shea’s Iron Law of the Inverse Relationship between Intellect Worship and Intellect Use is again proven in the laboratory of human experience.  They don’t even get what they don’t get.  Remarkable.

@rover serton: Regarding where awareness of morality comes, from, did you read my comments above at Sep 16, 2011 12:10 PM (EST)? It starts with a phenomenon called conscience. Then, though, we have the question of what to make of conscience, what it means or tells us. We go from there. The OT is important, but it’s a third-level or fourth-level question. We’re still trying to get from level 0 to level 1 in this discussion.

@rover serton: Also, what Matt B. said. One of the David Attenborough BBC series—I think it’s “Planet Earth”—documents the phenomenon of chimpanzee clans going to war with one another. The primatologists attribute it to territory acquisition, IIRC. It is quite deliberate. The invading band sneaks quietly into the rival band’s territory. They attack. They kill. When it’s all over, they eat their rivals, especially the babies. As for drakes raping ducks, I’ve witnessed it also.

@rover serton: From Wikipedia: Mallard > Breeding:
 

When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up “left out”. This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck, even when she’s of a different species, and proceed to chase and peck at her until she weakens, at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female. Lebret (1961) calls this behaviour “Attempted Rape Flight” and Cramp & Simmons (1977) speak of “rape-intent flights”. Male Mallards will also occasionally chase other male ducks of a different species, and even each other, in the same way. In one documented case of “homosexual necrophilia”, a male Mallard copulated with another male he was chasing after the chased male died upon flying into a glass window.[19]

@Steven D. Greydanus
“The ‘school of hard knocks’ teaches all sorts of lessons. Compassion and cooperation can be successful strategies. So can ruthlessness and egoism. If conscience is only an inherited warning indicator of potential risk, it makes sense to take it under advisement, but there’s no reason to privilege it above all other interests.”
—
If compassion, co-operation and the other social instincts and emotions had not dominated over more selfish instincts we wouldn’t be here today to tell the tale.
—
“There is absolutely no reason, for instance, to risk one’s life for someone else. The instinct that moves me to do so is only the legacy of a shared gene that benefited one of my ancestors because a related ancestor lost his or her life due to the same semi-suicidal gene. I can be grateful that my ancestor survived rather than the other man, but it would be stupid and contrary to my self-interest to do likewise.”
—
Your only concern may be your personal self interest but others hold that some things are more important than their personal survival. Often these are simple things such as duty, honour and feelings of self worth.
—
“Conversely, if I can sabotage my colleague’s career in order to benefit myself, if I can seduce or rape my neighbor’s wife and get away with it, if I can kill my enemy without undue risk of social sanction, why should I not do so, in your view?”
—
Well, the simple answer is I don’t want to. I am genetically and culturally programmed to behave as a social animal. But of course I can rationalise my position in several ways:
I want to live at peace with my conscience.
I don’t want to live with the fear of being found out.
I want to like myself.
I want to encourage reciprocity from my fellows for the advantage of all.
I believe in society as a good thing and I want to support it by my actions
I believe my individual actions have a non-trivial effect on society.
—
“Princeton ethicist Peter Singer thinks that killing babies as old as a year or so is ethically acceptable in principle (though for practical reasons he would confine it to a month). What would you say to that?“
—
I find the idea repugnant. That’s my genes and cultural programming showing up again. I guess I can rationalise this view also beginning with:
I would say that such a policy has never been adopted by a successful society so its downsides for society in general are probably significant.

@Matt B
Your claim that altruistic acts are a mark of incipient religiosity is without foundation and belied by the fact that we see such acts among animals.

@Steven D. Greydanus
“What does “important” mean in this sentence?”
—
A higher priority in terms of personal preference.

Shea’s iron law looks alot the Dunning-Kruger effect.

@Steven D. Greydanus
“If I am capable of killing you or an entire race, particularly if I can get away with it, then no one can say that I have done a wrong. It would be absurd to say so.” (Nietzsche)

Is Nietzsche wrong? Or rather, if you do say “That would be wrong,” are you expressing anything important about anything? Or are you merely expressing an electro-bio-chemical event inside yourself, like “Artichokes are tasty” or “Escargot is gross”?
—
Right and wrong are conformity or its lack with a particular moral system. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. A moral system serves a group. Nietzsche’s proposed actions should be judged in terms of how well they serve the interests of the group. If Nietzsche was a member of my society I would judge his proposed action as definitely wrong.

@ARL
“A framework for morality must be secular in order to have any hope of being universal.”

—
Are you sure that a universal moral system is a good idea?

@Gordon Hide:
 
“If compassion, co-operation and the other social instincts and emotions had not dominated over more selfish instincts we wouldn’t be here today to tell the tale.”
 
Sorry, friend, but on any objective reading of the record, this is only half the tale. Compassion and cooperation have helped to get us here; so have ruthlessness and selfishness. Often they go hand in hand: cooperation amongst ourselves enables us be more effective in our ruthlessness toward others—like the chimp clan that cooperates in order to destroy the rival clan. The Seljuk Turks were not so successful by being compassionate to the Byzantines. The Normans did not conquer England by compassion toward the Saxons. The United States did not get to be the country it is by being compassionate toward the Native Americans. The super-rich who continue to amass an ever-larger percentage of the total wealth in an ever-smaller number of hands and pockets do not continue to prosper by having the conscience of a Mother Teresa.
 
Often compassion and cooperation provide a friendly context for selfishness and ruthlessness to thrive. A society in which 90 percent of the population lives by a moral code and 10 percent are ruthless and selfish often works out quite well for the 10 percent.
 
“Your only concern may be your personal self interest but others hold that some things are more important than their personal survival. Often these are simple things such as duty, honour and feelings of self worth.”
 
That works out well when “duty” and “honor” are understood to be more than vague flutters in one’s nervous system, or sounds that other people use to try to get us to behave the way that they want. Likewise, for most people “feelings of self-worth” depend on an idea of meaning that is something more than whatever I want it to be. When you throw that out the window, what’s left? What if someone gets “feelings of self-worth” by beating up people who are weaker than they are?
 
“Well, the simple answer is I don’t want to. I am genetically and culturally programmed to behave as a social animal.”
 
So is everyone else, yet the behaviors I described happen every day. They aren’t even uncommon. So you haven’t really answered the question.
 
Beyond that, as nice a guy as you may be, if you’ve never struggled with temptation to do something underhanded or even downright despicable, you would be one of the first I’ve ever met.
 
And if you do struggle, do you ever think to yourself, “Maybe this is one of those situations in which preferences inclining me to do the ‘wrong’ thing outweigh those inclining me to do the ‘right’ thing?”
 
If you have never thought that—and more, if the thought of having that thought strikes you as a bad thing to be avoided—then I submit, in the words of the atheist quoted in Mark’s post above, that you are still, “in your heart, a theologian or a metaphysician.” You have not truly grasped what it means to live in a world without objective moral norms.
 
Your list of rationalizations are all well and good, but they’re all relative considerations. None of them provides you with an iron-clad reason not to do something if the stakes were high enough and the chances of success good enough. They are the kind of bourgeois considerations that work reasonably well most of the time for average people facing average temptations. It is because so many people have nothing better than that to restrain them that Lord Acton’s observation about power tending to corrupt has such explanatory power.
 
“What does ‘important’ mean in this sentence? A higher priority in terms of personal preference.”
 
But what is “personal preference” based on? Your emotional state at the moment? The mobs rioting in England recently were acting on their “personal preferences.” Therefore, by your definition, they were doing something “important.” Perhaps they were even acting “morally.” I can’t see that you have any basis for saying otherwise, as opposed to saying that their goals were not “important” to you, not in keeping with your “personal preferences.”

“Right and wrong are conformity or its lack with a particular moral system. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. A moral system serves a group”

But why adhere to any moral system?  Why should I care about the welfare of the group?  The classification of “benefits the group” vs not is arbitrary.  If my goals can be achieved through “immoral” means that are simpler than their moral counterparts why not make use of them?

Matt B:
I don’t know if I have a divine spark, or if it is possible to do something that transcends my own human desires. But I do know that, when I consider some of the thoughts and works people have performed that have reached closest to eternity, I think about people like Isaac Newton, a Christian, Spinoza and Einstein, pantheist Jews, Bernstein and Tchaikovsky, irreligious, Lev Landau and Paul Dirac, militant atheists, Charles Darwin and Marie Curie, agnostic. Tolstoy, Russian Orthodox, and Percy Shelley, atheist.
—-
Though my aesthetic is more attuned to scientific discovery than literary or artistic accomplishment, and thus biased somewhat toward non-religious (far more scientists today are non-religious than in the general population), I find that great minds, those that touched eternity with their pens and paint brushes, accomplished what they have irrespective of their religion. If God exists, I think Albert Einstein knew his mind far better than David or Jesus Christ.

@Paul Rimmer: I think your comments are a contribution to the discussion worth taking seriously. I wish you had left off the last three words, which, inadvertently or otherwise, blaspheme the Son of God incarnate. It is in a way even a double blasphemy, since you call Him “Jesus Christ,” simultaneously affirming His divine chosenness and impugning His divine knowledge. If you wanted to be neutral you could have called him “Jesus of Nazareth.” But I still wish you had left Him out entirely.

Gordon, the “genetically predisposed” argument is essetially a black box which means in effect “I don’t know why people act as they do - it’s genetic.”  Can anybody really say how the chemical structures of DNA translates into complex human behavior?  The only meaning the language “genetic predisposition” communicates is that, like with all materialistic philosophies, free will is denied.  I can easily envision an alternate function for DNA where free will is asserted, and determinism is blown out of the water:  the universe is a harp played by God, and DNA is the ear by which we hear it.  That music is an invitation to particpate more fully in the divine nature, and we either accept or refuse - but free will is real and intact.

Paul, you do have a divine spark in your nature.  Don’t allow it to be extinguished. 

I have a rule about greatness, especially in the arts: greatness does not trump goodness.  Many a putatave artist has sacrificed goodness for their “craft.”  What they teach us through their art is not really worth hearing.  Contrarily, many a drudge working long dreary hours to support a wife and a family, with no “artistic talent” at all has accomplished greater and more meaningful things.  Our Lord said it this way: “judge rightly, and not by appearances.”  Don’t let the arpeggios fool you.

Steven,
Thank you for your response, and for the respect you show to my position. The last line was intended to show what could be called a religious degree to which I respect deep knowledge of natural principles. It is only in reflection that I see the last words to be overly polemical and insulting. Please accept my apologies.
Once you have time and the inclination, I would be very interested in your thoughts on my contribution.

@Steven D. Greydanus

“Sorry, friend, but on any objective reading of the record, this is only half the tale. Compassion and cooperation have helped to get us here; so have ruthlessness and selfishness.”
—
The social emotions and instincts operate only within the “in group”. They must be dominant there otherwise the in group wouldn’t exist.
—
“The super-rich who continue to amass an ever-larger percentage of the total wealth in an ever-smaller number of hands and pockets do not continue to prosper by having the conscience of a Mother Teresa.”
—
This is a bad example. You need an example of anti-social behaviour on a large scale which persisted over a long period without causing the afflicted society to be superseded
by something better. After all as Abe said “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
It’s not that you don’t get immoral behaviour within the in group but when you do society functions less well.
—
“That works out well when “duty” and “honor” are understood to be more than vague flutters in one’s nervous system, or sounds that other people use to try to get us to behave the way that they want. Likewise, for most people “feelings of self-worth” depend on an idea of meaning that is something more than whatever I want it to be. When you throw that out the window, what’s left? What if someone gets “feelings of self-worth” by beating up people who are weaker than they are?”
—
I’m not responsible for the fact that human society works imperfectly or that there is great variation amongst human beings. The fact is, given an appropriate moral system to which most of the population adheres, society offers great advantage to one and all. I believe society couldn’t exist without moral systems and such systems existed long before religion or even speech existed. They were based on the social emotions and instincts.

It’s not true that everyone has the same genetic and cultural programming. Some people have physiological deficits some have poor upbringing.
The fact that I and everyone else commit immoral acts from time to time is neither here nor there.
I have no idea what you’re talking about when you claim that I am a theologian. I have never been a theist. I believe I do live in a world without practical “in use” objective moral norms.
I hardly need iron clad reasons not to do things I don’t want to do anyway.
The most honest societies in the world are the ones with the highest levels of organic atheism. They don’t need “iron clad reasons” to behave as they want to behave anyway.
Your view that something which transcends human rationality, emotions and instincts is required for moral behaviour is not backed up by statistics.
Your attempt to rework what I wrote to intimate that the behaviour of the godless is only a matter of personal preference won’t wash. I have already explained how I believe morality arose in the world and how individuals absorb the code they live by.

@Colin Gormley:
“But why adhere to any moral system?  Why should I care about the welfare of the group?  The classification of “benefits the group” vs not is arbitrary.  If my goals can be achieved through “immoral” means that are simpler than their moral counterparts why not make use of them?”
—
You don’t have to care about the welfare of the group but if you don’t conform to their social mores they will take action against you. In addition you will have to live with your conscience. Unless you have a physiological deficit or you have been conditioned to ignore your conscience you will find living with guilt and regret uncomfortable.

@Matt B on Saturday, Sep 17, 2011 5:39 PM (EDT):
“Gordon, the “genetically predisposed” argument is essetially a black box which means in effect “I don’t know why people act as they do - it’s genetic.”  Can anybody really say how the chemical structures of DNA translates into complex human behavior?  The only meaning the language “genetic predisposition” communicates is that, like with all materialistic philosophies, free will is denied.”
—
Well, I can certainly agree with that although better educated people may believe they know something about the black box contents. I’ll have to take your word for it that all materialist philosophies result in denying free will. Mine certainly does.
—
“I can easily envision an alternate function for DNA where free will is asserted, and determinism is blown out of the water:  the universe is a harp played by God, and DNA is the ear by which we hear it.  That music is an invitation to particpate more fully in the divine nature, and we either accept or refuse - but free will is real and intact.”
—
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion. It is not shared by most scientists or secular philosophers.

Gordon, I wonder what are the practical applications of deterministic philosophy and denial of free will?  As opposed to a philosophy of free will and personal responsibility.  Whether you believe in free will or not - you have it.  Whether you acknowledge personal responsibility or not - you’re under an obligation.  All the scientists and secular philosophers you mention have taken an enormous haircut, and are walking around naked and bald.  Perhaps when our “brightest and best” awaken from their drunken slumber, the world will start to see a renaissance.  I’m only afraid the awakening will be sudden and unsubtle.

Paul and Gordon, it’s clear your laboring under a misunderstanding about the nature of “higher things,” and their relation to everyday human behavior.  Although it hasn’t come out explicitly, its woven into your every argument.  Paul reeled off a litany of secular saints, and even went so far as to compare Einstein favorably to Jesus.  (I think David was just a bonus point.)  And Gordon has exquisitely laid out a sociological polemic for humanoid-only moral decisions.  I admit: there is some elegance about both these positions, and I especially admire Gordon’s descriptive prowess.  I feel I’m sitting at the campfire in the shadow of the anthropologist with his tape measure, waiting for him to measure my cranium.  I bow to these “scientific” impulses, which are good as far as they go.

The key signal that there’s a critical disconnect is when Paul puts Jesus in the same sentence as Madame Curie, or even Einstein.  I think even on a secular level the intellectual power of Christ far exceeds these minor figures, given a fair assessment.  And that by many levels of magnitude.  Unfortunately, so much accretion has attached to the gospel message, as well as the inevitable devolutions into error and heresy by some.

But the difference between our Jesus, and any intellectual or artistic luminary you name is the eternal life adherence to his message guarantees.  Apparently, both Paul and Gordon have discounted this, probably because of misunderstanding, and certainly because they have never known or experienced eternal life.  They also have not met or talked with Jesus, who faith tells us is still alive.  The evidentiary value of the many miracles and cures mentioned in the Bible have been undermined by skeptical philosophy and materialism.  “Modern” people don’t believe such things.

But it’s Jesus, and the eternal life he brought with him from heaven, that transforms dead ethical theories you reject into life-giving, energizing and liberating…  The word I was going to use is fun.  That hardly seems toney enough for this crowd.

The tendancy of materialism is to analyze down to a further and further microreality, or to explain with a glossier and glossier vocabulary.  But when does the analysis go deep enough?  When do we stop seeing the forest for the trees?

In the end, scientists have no idea what makes for “life.”  All the parts fit together, but we haven’t really created, we’ve just rearranged.  There’s only one place to go for life.  And when you find it, you’re going to want to go back again and again.  You’re going to want to stay there.

Paul and Gordon - here’s hoping you don’t succumb to some kind of ghoulish substitute.  I pray you find the real life.

Matt,
You have given an good Catholic summary of our positions, and there is little more to say about the topic you’ve chosen to address. One minor correction to your description of my own views: I have not discounted Jesus’ message and do not misunderstand it. To misunderstand is to think you understand when you really don’t. I realize I don’t understand at all. And I don’t discount or reject Jesus’ message. I take the agnostic position, and withhold judgement.

@adrian mckinty:

“As a parting thought I think it may be a mistake to use slavery as your example of supreme evil. I agree that slavery is wrong but I say it’s wrong because it debases human beings and uses them as a means to other people’s ends. I don’t need a book to tell me this. Indeed your book tells me the opposite. I’ve never heard a believer yet explain away the evil document that is Exodus 21.”
—
## D’you *want* an explanation ? There’s nothing to explain away, but a good deal to explain. Have you tried consulting a commentary ? Just a thought

@Matt B
“Gordon, I wonder what are the practical applications of deterministic philosophy and denial of free will?  As opposed to a philosophy of free will and personal responsibility.  Whether you believe in free will or not - you have it.  Whether you acknowledge personal responsibility or not - you’re under an obligation. “
—
I’ll assume you meant “What are the practical implications of determinism?” If this is not the case I apologise. Surprisingly there are few. You would think that such a fundamental difference in the understanding of reality would lead to significant differences in the actions of determinists and free will supporters. However, this is not the case and the different outlooks are largely academic in nature.
I believe this is because we are all largely motivated by our emotions and instincts in our dealings with others and the fact that even free will believers believe that our genetic makeup and past experiences have a great influence on what we do.
Free will believers and even some determinists do believe that the different meaning of “personal responsibility” necessary for determinists has practical importance but that is not the case I think.
One of differences that I notice is that, having the same emotions and instincts as everyone else, I may rage against the perpetrators of heinous crimes as disgust, outrage, desire for retribution and the violation of my sense of fairness take hold, but when I have calmed down I tend to take a more “there but for fortune” attitude, (with apologies to Joan Baez).

<url> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BYOJ1tc-k</url>

@Paul Rimmer
“I wonder why someone cannot have an entirely egoistic pragmatic morality that is, in terms of actions, completely or at least mostly indistinct from the Christian morality.”
—
Keeping in mind that it’s what you do rather than what you think that matters as far as living in society is concerned what you describe is what happens in Christian majority countries. Non-believers operate a code of conduct that allows them to function as expected in a Christian country.

@Mark Shea
...then proves his folly by recognizing that you cannot have a coherent moral system without God, but attempting to manufacture one anyway based on his personal whims and desires. All he does is prove the truth of C.S. Lewis prophetic book The Abolition of Man, which warns, “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”

Yes, I don’t want to shock anybody but I fear you have completely the wrong end of the stick. In the matter of morality it is not “what is good” nor what “I want” that counts. Instead it is what works for society that matters. Morality came into the world because of its utility in aiding the survival of our genes. Morality promotes co-operation within a group. Effective co-operation ensures that the whole can be so much greater than the sum of the parts. So the groups which co-operate most successfully within the group, all other things being equal, have a better chance of survival.
On this view “good” is not an end in itself but merely a means towards the survival of the group.

@Mark Shea
“They have been carried up the ladder of morality by their Christian ancestors and now are in the process of kicking down the ladder and throwing a torch downstairs, confident that the upstairs they inhabit will never be touched by the flames.”
—
Interesting analogy. Presumably this is happening in the same manner as the early Christians were carried up the ladder of morality by their Pagan ancestors and then kicked down the ladder and threw a torch downstairs, confident that the upstairs they inhabited would never be touched by the flames.

Paul - materialists tend to think of faith as some kind of fanciful delusion, extraneous to the practical considerations of life.  But faith is a human faculty as central and important as mobility, sense and rational thought.  In fact, faith is tightly interwoven into all our “human arrangements” as even Gordon seems to indicate.  For surely his system of humanist morality could not run on mere compulsion or force of law.  As we can see by todays headlines, our entire economic and political system runs on faith - otherwise it devolves into the morass we find ourselves in.  And just like eyesight is subject to variation in individuals, so is faith: some are struggling along with coke-bottle glasses, and some are batting cleanup for the Cleveland Indians.  Medicine has been entirely developed to enhance our capacities - physical and psychological.  Do you seee a disadvantage for the similar purposes of religion?

But if “material” faculties tell us about the facts and circumstances of our material world, for advancing our health or happiness, what is the purpose of the “faith” faculty?  Is there a world beyond the “material” which also has a bearing on our health and happiness?  I suggest that there is a world more material than “material” that is vaster, deeper and more meaningful both now and in the long run.  It has a direct bearing on our present well-being, and long term implications as well.

The key element of faith is an understanding and acknowledgment that there is a God - a creator to this mess.  Moreover, as faith develops, it gains a greater knowledge and understanding of this God.  Just as the incipient eyesight of an infant first perceives shapes, then recognizes his or her parents, then comes to appreciate colors and after awhile, great art.  Just as light is the element of vision, God is the element of faith.  Stronger faith - clearer vision of God.

Gordon, the purpose of developing and refining a faith-based morality is to understand and follow the purpose and plan of God.  This dovetails into worship, and practice of the works of mercy.  What is the application of a materialist-based ethic?  There are no action points, no corporate or personal goals, no point to it at all.  If you have a philosophy of personal responsibility, development of moral character in the subject and society is the goal.  But if everything is predetermined, what’s the point?  Are you trying to inch your way up on the bell-curve of human happiness.  Are you trying to maximize your distribution of material goods and “happiness?”  Are you trying to reduce the variation in quantifiable attributes of satisfaction or success?  If so, you don’t really have an atheistic determinism, you have a hedonistic materialism.  You have just exchanged gods, not eliminated them.

@Matt B:
“Gordon, the purpose of developing and refining a faith-based morality is to understand and follow the purpose and plan of God.”
—
I believe that moral systems are not developed and refined as a conscious effort of men but rather they change dynamically by experiment in terms of what works to support society. They are influenced by the zeitgeist and changes in the environment within which society must operate. Certainly they are influenced by religion, but after a few centuries, the religious view of what’s right tends to atrophy and it trails behind what society needs or wants.
—
“What is the application of a materialist-based ethic?  There are no action points, no corporate or personal goals, no point to it at all.  If you have a philosophy of personal responsibility, development of moral character in the subject and society is the goal.  But if everything is predetermined, what’s the point?  Are you trying to inch your way up on the bell-curve of human happiness.  Are you trying to maximize your distribution of material goods and “happiness?”  Are you trying to reduce the variation in quantifiable attributes of satisfaction or success?  If so, you don’t really have an atheistic determinism, you have a hedonistic materialism.  You have just exchanged gods, not eliminated them.”
—
In my view all moral system are concerned with the relationships between men, (and perhaps some animals). The goal is not something selected by men but is always the smooth working of society leading to improved chances for its survival. Good or ethical behaviour is only a means to this end.
Individuals may have life goals but they need not be related to the purpose of a moral system. Even individual moral decisions may have goals related to what an individual is trying to achieve. As long as the resulting action of any decision falls within the boundaries of acceptability of the code then the decision can be considered moral rather than immoral.
Of course we hope that men will choose life goals which, if achieved, lead to the advancement of society and the further improvement of life. But, as long as a man’s actions remain within the code, there is no difficultly in having him pursue self centred ends although because men are social animals one would expect such goals to be ultimately unsatisfying. Certainly atheism or materialism cannot protect men from an increasingly desperate search for new but increasingly unsatisfying personal gratifications and ultimately nihilism. You need to have at least some life goals which recognise you are a social animal.
Personally I am a man of little ambition and simple tastes. My goal is to look after my wife and help my children and grandchildren where I can. I also like to learn a little every day and tackle a couple of brain teasers. I am the cook in our house. My wife likes decorating, gardening and spoiling the grandchildren.
I hope that answers your questions.

Matt:
Interesting statement. I’m not sure how to answer the questions you ask, because I’m not sure what you mean by “faith”. Could you say what you mean when you use the word?

Dear Mr. Hide,

I have been reading this blog but have not participated because I 1.) lack the ability to express my belief’s adequately and 2.) because I think Mr. Matt B. and Mr. Greydanus are doing a fine job.  However, I would be interested in how your understanding of moral systems relates to those with extreme disabilities.  In your system of a moral code, those with extreme disabilities do not lead society to improved chances of survival.  If my understanding of what you have been saying is correct, then they have no moral place because they do not contribute to the survival of the species.  As a matter of fact they are a deficit to society.  They take resources away from those who have a better chance of reproducing productive members for the benefit of society.  Where do they fit in? Do their lives have any moral value?

Thank you - LAJ

“You don’t have to care about the welfare of the group but if you don’t conform to their social mores they will take action against you”

Might makes right, then?

“In addition you will have to live with your conscience. Unless you have a physiological deficit or you have been conditioned to ignore your conscience you will find living with guilt and regret uncomfortable.”

Why would I need a psychological defect to be evil?  People do things that are “wrong” and are otherwise sane.  The reason why we punish people who do wrong is because we assume they have the free will to do so.

Yeah Right,

I find it ironic that you use examples of what YOU think are immoral/wrong actions (ie slavery, witch burnings and the inquisition) to prove that there are no true rights and wrongs.  In other words, according to your own examples and reasoning, there is nothing wrong with slavery, the burning of witches or torturing people…so why keep using them to show how awfully wrong and immoral the Catholic Church has been in the past?  It confuses me.

Paul, “what is faith?”  That brings up a famous episode in the gospel, where the Roman governor is conflicted about what to do with Jesus, who has been turned in by the Jewish religious authorities for capital punishment.  He realizes their envy, but they also could make things difficult for him if he refuses to comply with their wishes.  Jesus confronts him with a choice “Do you believe in the truth?”  The Governor asks famously, “What is truth?”  He ends up going against his conscience in order to placate the crowd, and puts Jesus to death.  Your “what is faith” question has something of the same ring.  Faith is well known is general applications, and I’m guessing in specific questions you’re grappling with.  To ask rhetorically “what is faith,” is tantamount to a denial of good faith, submersion of conscience, and capitulation to expediency in a test of character.  Or am I making too much of your question?

“Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, so therefore listen to the Bible, or to the Church, etc.” That is not the argument on offer here. The sooner that is internalized, the more productive discussion here will be.

Here is where you guys are missing the boat.  A thing is not right or wrong because the Catholic Church says it is.

The Catholic Church says it is right or wrong because it IS right or wrong. 

She does not invent or create morality.  She is not the author of morality.

She discovers, promotes and protects morality.

Why can’t you guys see the difference???

Gordon, thank you for the insight into your personal life.  I have nothing but good wishes for all the people you mention in your post.
Your moral system, however, which sounds like it could be modelled onto a spreadsheet, still lacks several critical elements:
1-Who makes decisions about what is moral?  Your descriptions are all kind of organic, like “things just happen,” or “standards are set,”  But who does this standard setting?
2-If your morality doesn’t take into account religiousity or faith, which you describe as “fallen away into desuetude hundreds of years ago,” can it really be characterized as organic or in any way representative?  After all, 9/10 of the population of the world stil depends on religion.  And if we can believe our president, they also have the guns.  Are they going to be so readily discounted?
3-Your philosophy reminds me of someone who buys a watermelon, brings it home, cuts it up - throws away the red part and eats the rind!  If all you’re hoping for out of your happiness-generating survival-ensuring moral system is limited to this world, you’re not getting your money’s worth.
Just as a personal aside, if a moral system can’t provide for greatness, holiness, ecstasy (and not the artificial kind), enduring life, and immense personal wealth of character - why bother?  Your morality sounds just about right for english civil servants, but somewhat lacking for kings.
And finally, even in a psychological sense, what you aim for defines what you achieve.  If you aim for everlasting life, you will hit it even in this world.  If you’re expecting to sink into a test pattern, it will show in your here and now.

Matt, yes, amen to this: “Those who forego the “quest” descend into a kind of entropy…Contrarily, those who believe in and follow objective truth live in a rich, full, varied, nuanced and delightful world.”  From my (sad) experience, atheism, as a paradigm doesn’t take you anywhere interesting or anywhere you really want to go. One artless example is that we do the good we know we ought because it benefits the collective, like the Borg…and resistance IS futile, as it’s written into the software.  Even if I am a meatbag of finite existence I abandon this paradigm on the grounds that it makes my short, meaty existence more painful, boring and confusing than it need be.  But between you and me, I sought and found, knocked and the door was opened.  Jack Johnson anyone?

Your echo comes back out of tune
Now you can quite get used to if
Reverb is just a room
The problem is that there’s no truth to it
It’s fading way too soon
The shadow is on the move
And maybe you should be moving too
Before it takes away all that you learned to love
It will defeat you and then teach you to get back up
Cause you don’t
Always
Have to hold your head
Higher than your heart

You better hope you’re not alone
You better hope you’re not alone

Matt:
No rhetoric. No intentional echoing of Pilate. Just curiosity. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before we move forward (unless you are not interested in moving forward). It’s a simple question: What do you mean when you say “faith”? People seem to have different ideas about what the word means.

<i>Interesting analogy. Presumably this is happening in the same manner as the early Christians were carried up the ladder of morality by their Pagan ancestors and then kicked down the ladder and threw a torch downstairs, confident that the upstairs they inhabited would never be touched by the flames.<i>

Nice attempt at a tu quoque, except that you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Christian theology takes natural law for granted, never said, as atheists routinely do, that all that came before it was totally wrong, and is in fact the thing responsible for preserving out of antiquity the works of the great pagan moral philosophers.  That is, for instance, what the Greek fathers are doing when they rely heavily on Plato and what St. Thomas is doing when he baptizes, not sets fire to, Aristotle.  Compare and contrast that with a Hitchens who declares all religion (including Plato and Aristotle and all other theists toute courte) to “belongs to the bawling and fearful infancy of our species”.  Catholic theology, believing that grace perfect nature, does not take this approach of setting fire to the first floor. It weighs, sifts and preserves what is best from the pagan roots of human civilization.  Atheism rashly sets fire to all that is not of the present with Hitchens’ supremely arrogant words, “Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on.”

@LAJ:
“I would be interested in how your understanding of moral systems relates to those with extreme disabilities.  In your system of a moral code, those with extreme disabilities do not lead society to improved chances of survival. Where do they fit in? Do their lives have any moral value? “
—
First I would like to correct what might be a misapprehension on your part. You use the phrase “In your system of a moral code”. I am not trying to advocate for a particular set of moral values or even advocate how I think society should go about selecting such a set of values. I see myself as trying to “tell it like it is”. That is, I am putting forward a hypothesis to explain how morality came to be and why it exhibits the properties we see today in the world. Additionally I guess I am trying to explain to Mark Shea why his view of the nature of morality and his view of what his generalised, fictitious and straw man atheist believes is not just wrong but probably irrelevant.
What I can tell you is what I feel about the position of the “useless” in society personally but, perhaps more importantly, why I think killing off the useless has only been a rare and intermittent feature of human societies and how this is explained within the context of my hypothesis. Although I have to say that my answer to you post is not some intrinsic part of my ideas but only what occurs to me in answer to your question.
As I am myself fast approaching economic and social uselessness you can guess how I feel about being disposed of against my will.
I note that from my understanding disposing of the “useless” by allowing them to die of through lack of care was a common feature of primitive societies. (And I’m not too sure that I don’t observe some of the same in modern Western societies).
I think that any society that decides to kill off the economically and socially useless is faced with certain problems:
Who exactly gets to decide who’s for the chop? Who writes the standard? How do you stop the corrupt or vindictive taking advantage of the system?
The entire population and especially those involved in implementation of such a policy will be acting against their natural empathic feelings towards their fellows. A general guilt and lowering of self esteem will likely follow.
A debilitating level of anxiety would descend on those approaching uselessness and perhaps even upon their loved ones. Considerable resources will be diverted to “dodging the draft” so to speak.

@Colin Gormley:
“Might makes right, then?”
—
I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Whatever sort of moral system operates in a society it is enforced by various degrees and forms of coercion.

@Colin Gormley:
“Why would I need a psychological defect to be evil?  People do things that are “wrong” and are otherwise sane.  The reason why we punish people who do wrong is because we assume they have the free will to do so.”
—
I know that some religions take a different view but I believe your behaviour is genetically and culturally programmed to be “good”, at least in your relations with others in your “in group”. Thus if your behaviour is not good you either have a physiological defect or your upbringing left something to be desired, that is you were effectively conditioned to disregard your genetic propensities. So I guess your shortfall could be physiological rather than psychological. But the human condition is unimaginably complicated. I certainly don’t claim to know all the answers.

@Matt B:
“Your moral system, however, which sounds like it could be modelled onto a spreadsheet, still lacks several critical elements:
1-Who makes decisions about what is moral?  Your descriptions are all kind of organic, like “things just happen,” or “standards are set,”  But who does this standard setting?”
—
I believe you are labouring under a misapprehension about my position. I have explained this elsewhere in a reply to LAJ. Unfortunately that reply is undergoing moderation as I write so you may have to wait to read it.
—
2-If your morality doesn’t take into account religiousity or faith, which you describe as “fallen away into desuetude hundreds of years ago,” can it really be characterized as organic or in any way representative?  After all, 9/10 of the population of the world stil depends on religion.  And if we can believe our president, they also have the guns.  Are they going to be so readily discounted?
—
My personal moral code does not take into account religion but there is no reason why others shouldn’t.
—
“3-Your philosophy reminds me of someone who buys a watermelon, brings it home, cuts it up - throws away the red part and eats the rind!  If all you’re hoping for out of your happiness-generating survival-ensuring moral system is limited to this world, you’re not getting your money’s worth.”
—
Perhaps, but it’s enough for me.
—
“Just as a personal aside, if a moral system can’t provide for greatness, holiness, ecstasy (and not the artificial kind), enduring life, and immense personal wealth of character - why bother?  Your morality sounds just about right for english civil servants, but somewhat lacking for kings.”
—
If that is so kings may have something more suited to them
—
“And finally, even in a psychological sense, what you aim for defines what you achieve.  If you aim for everlasting life, you will hit it even in this world.  If you’re expecting to sink into a test pattern, it will show in your here and now.”
—
Personally I think those who crave everlasting life lack the imagination to conceive how awful that would be. I don’t expect the moral code to which I adhere to have very much to do with my life’s goals.

@Mark Shea:
“Nice attempt at a tu quoque, except that you seem to be ignorant of the fact that Christian theology takes natural law for granted, never said, as atheists routinely do, that all that came before it was totally wrong”
—
I’m afraid I don’t recognize your straw man atheist.
—
“Hitchens declares all religion (including Plato and Aristotle and all other theists toute courte) to “belongs to the bawling and fearful infancy of our species”.
“Catholic theology, believing that grace perfect nature, does not take this approach of setting fire to the first floor. It weighs, sifts and preserves what is best from the pagan roots of human civilization.  Atheism rashly sets fire to all that is not of the present with Hitchens’ supremely arrogant words, ‘Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on.’”
—
Well I can’t really speak for Hitchens but I think you’ll find he is of the opinion that religion is not the original source of morality so he is not throwing that particular baby out with the bath water. The same straw man repeated I think.

Gordon,

religion is not the original source of morality

Well then Hitchens and Mark and Steve and I agree.  The question is, if religion is not the original source of morality, what is?

Mark,

Great post.  I disagree with you sometimes, but you’re spot on here.

Paul, I’m sorry I misjudged your question.  So many things have been written so eloquently about faith, based on people’s intimate, personal and real experiences.  I’m not sure I could really give you an answer in a few words, but it’s so ubiquitous and pervasive that your question seemed insincere.  Try imagining how Moses felt, when God directed him towards the Red Sea.  Or imagine Sarah and Abraham at age 100 hearing God tell them they would be parents, or Elijah confronting alone the 400 prophets of Baal, and then having fire from heaven consume his sacrifice.  These things send chills down my spine.  But every believer has similar stories to tell - more personal and maybe less stupendous.  But just as miraculous, and just as amazing.  I’m going to be that you’ve had a similar experience yourself.

Dear Mr. Hide,

If you are as you state, “I see myself as trying to “tell it like it is.””, then this is what you believe.  You have spent a great deal of time explaining “tell it like it is” and defending “tell it like it is” so to now state that you are not trying to “advocate for a particular set of moral values or even advocate how I think society should go about selecting such a set of values” is a major dodge.  I got whiplash reading that one. : )  In other words you have put forth a hypothesis that you believe to be true yet are unwilling to own that hypothesis when a questions is asked that makes you uncomfortable.

If moral codes are set by society are you not part of society? Are you not part of setting those codes?  If you believe that moral codes are made by society for the good of society so that it survives as a stronger group then how do you deal with the “useless” (your term here not mine)?  This question drills past your “professorial” detachment of how moral codes are set and gets to the heart of the matter.  You briefly get there also with your questions “Who exactly gets to decide who’s for the chop? Who writes the standard? How do you stop the corrupt or vindictive taking advantage of the system?”  These questions remind me so much of George Bernard Shaw’s solution.  He advocated for a government board.  Everyone would have to appear before this board every five years and justify their existence.  One of the questions they would have to answer was “Do you produce more than you consume?”  I wonder if you realize that your thesis on how moral codes are set in society is the same reasoning the Nazi’s and Communist Russia used when dealing with what they considered “undesirables”. 

Philosophy Mr. Hide has real world consequences. 

If you are interested I have a book that I would like to recommend.  It is The Science Before Science by Physicist Dr. Rizzi.  You can find it at www.iapweb.org.

Again thank you,
LAJ

@mk:

“Well then Hitchens and Mark and Steve and I agree.  The question is, if religion is not the original source of morality, what is?”

—

Morality was born when natural selection first favoured the genes that caused our far ancestors to act co-operatively.

Gordon, while I appreciate that you’re being ganged up on here, I have to point out that your recourse to “natural selection” and so many other of the tired tropes of unenlightened science remind me a little of the spelunkers who stumbled onto those famous cave drawings in France.  At first they thought that somebody had arrived there first and urinated on the wall.  Then they realized the drawings were art, but pretty bad art.  Finally, they understood the uselessness of the drawings, except in terms of shining light on ancient numinous beliefs and practices.

Similarly, the writings of people like Somebody Dawkins, or that astronomer who overcame a significant handicap, or George Bernard Shaw, will be considered vague archeological artifacts of a strange demented time, like Boccaccio for the Black Death.  You seem to be an dabbler in this swooning plastic art.  I only hope you’re writing these posts tongue-in-cheek, like GBS.  I have a feeling he laughed about it before he went to bed: “What brilliant flaming fools, but how well they’re willing to pay!”

I think the whole history of this type of positivism has been invented, developed and promoted by brits with their pants on too tight.  This current crop is entirely derivative and hugely overexposed.  Hey, that’s a fig Newton!  Don’t be too carried away with it.

@Gordon Hide:
“Morality was born when natural selection first favoured the genes that caused our far ancestors to act co-operatively.”

I think you’re mixing up two things.  Morality isn’t simply an instinct for cooperation that has been selected for over time.  If that were so, society wouldn’t need to teach anyone anything about ethics, morality, or right behavior:  we could just teach our children (and everyone else for that matter) to “do what comes naturally” and, voila, we’d be fine and no worse off than if we tried to teach people to act consistent with some moral or ethical principles.

Morality is something different.  It’s what we teach people to do even if it’s *against* their instinct.  It’s what we teach our children to because of some notion of the good and rightness, not based on whether it’s in their long-run interest to do so.  Sometimes, of course, a moral action is in someone’s long-term material interest.  But often it’s not.  To try to explain away all of the morality-teaching structures of civilizations and religions over thousands of years as unnecessary window dressing that doesn’t affect what people are biologically going to do anyway (because it’s been selected for in our genes), seems like an obvious effort to explain away what we do not like.

@LAJ:
If you are as you state, “I see myself as trying to “tell it like it is.””, then this is what you believe.  You have spent a great deal of time explaining “tell it like it is” and defending “tell it like it is” so to now state that you are not trying to “advocate for a particular set of moral values or even advocate how I think society should go about selecting such a set of values” is a major dodge.  I got whiplash reading that one. : )  In other words you have put forth a hypothesis that you believe to be true yet are unwilling to own that hypothesis when a questions is asked that makes you uncomfortable.
If moral codes are set by society are you not part of society? Are you not part of setting those codes?  If you believe that moral codes are made by society for the good of society so that it survives as a stronger group then how do you deal with the “useless” (your term here not mine)?  This question drills past your “professorial” detachment of how moral codes are set and gets to the heart of the matter.  You briefly get there also with your questions “Who exactly gets to decide who’s for the chop? Who writes the standard? How do you stop the corrupt or vindictive taking advantage of the system?”  These questions remind me so much of George Bernard Shaw’s solution.  He advocated for a government board.  Everyone would have to appear before this board every five years and justify their existence.  One of the questions they would have to answer was “Do you produce more than you consume?”  I wonder if you realize that your thesis on how moral codes are set in society is the same reasoning the Nazi’s and Communist Russia used when dealing with what they considered “undesirables”.
—
Part of my hypothesis is that we assimilate our moral code from society. That is augmented by our life experience and the social emotions and instincts gifted to us by the evolutionary process. I have no idea why you should want me to explain the details of my particular code, a process that could go on for a long time. I am prepared to answer specific question about decisions I might make in specific circumstances. I have already done that to some extent.
As for being part of society and setting the codes, I guess I do modify my moral outlook based on the observed consequences of my previous decisions. Of course I have no control over whether my new view will be taken up more generally. Perhaps influential role models do have such control.
I am flattered that you feel I have a “professorial detachment” as I am in fact poorly and perhaps mostly self educated. I recognise that you weren’t trying to be complimentary.
I’ll have to take your word for it that my hypothesis is similar to that of Nazis and communists. But the fact that you think that does show that the hypothesis is not a recipe for how to behave but merely an explanation of why we behave as we do. After all the Nazis and communists are no longer with us by and large so history passed its verdict on the efficacy of their moral systems.
On reviewing what I have written I can perhaps understand why you find what I am saying frustrating as I guess you are keen to be able to demonstrate that my moral decision making is worse than yours because mine is not influenced by a belief in gods. Perhaps you should ask more specific questions about what I might do in specific circumstances. I will attempt to answer and to relate this to my overall hypothesis.

@Matt B on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 3:20 PM (EDT):
—
Well, other than to make clear your contempt for my opinions and the opinions of other, more famous atheists I can’t quite see the point of this post. I am ashamed to say that I haven’t read any of the books by the “new atheists”. “A brief history of time” by Stephen Hawking contains nothing about morality but the final line is famous: “If we find (a unified theory), it would be the ultimate triumph — for then we would know the mind of God.”

@Alexander:
“I think you’re mixing up two things.  Morality isn’t simply an instinct for cooperation that has been selected for over time.  If that were so, society wouldn’t need to teach anyone anything about ethics, morality, or right behavior:  we could just teach our children (and everyone else for that matter) to “do what comes naturally” and, voila, we’d be fine and no worse off than if we tried to teach people to act consistent with some moral or ethical principles.
Morality is something different.  It’s what we teach people to do even if it’s *against* their instinct.  It’s what we teach our children to because of some notion of the good and rightness, not based on whether it’s in their long-run interest to do so.  Sometimes, of course, a moral action is in someone’s long-term material interest.  But often it’s not.  To try to explain away all of the morality-teaching structures of civilizations and religions over thousands of years as unnecessary window dressing that doesn’t affect what people are biologically going to do anyway (because it’s been selected for in our genes), seems like an obvious effort to explain away what we do not like.”
—
I was asked how morality began. I answered. My answer didn’t mean that’s all I think there is to it.

Gordon, Prof. Hawking’s quote sounds a bit like Prometheus Bound.  The “ultimate triumph” is the conquest of self, and freedom for our sin-sickened souls from bootless attempts to “know” (control) the mind of God.  But because you’re recommending him, I’ll take Hawking for a poor poet, and not a sick scientist.

BTW - my contempt is purely histrionic.

Gordon, you deserve a lot credit for being the lone atheist on this string.  I’m half-convinced Mark Shea paying you to be a puching bag.  But after your Hawking revelation, I’m convinced we’re all wrong - you included - about this atheistic moralism being some kind of passive thing.  I was fooled into thinking that determinism robbed humanity of free will, free choice and eternity.  But what I see know is actually the opposite.  Since there’s no attempt in atheistic determinism to build character or maximize the results of our choices - what’s the payoff?  Why bother about something if it’s entirely academic?  But that’s the point - it is entirely academic!  The payoff is in scrutinizing and analyzing, projecting and proposing - like college professors debating about the faculty lounge coffee fund.  Nothing of consequence is accomplished in the end, but one group can crow about being statistically more accurate about the bean counts, they can take a secret satisfaction that their coffee choice was more pleasing in taste tests, and finally when the triumph is complete - they’ll be written up in some sociological journal or <gasp> be quoted in a textbook.  I can see where these types have no conception of personal responsibility resulting in the development of virtue leading to correct choices in life and death situations, and perhaps eternal triumph or damnation.  It’s just that a diminution in degree has resulted in a diminution in kind.

And ironically, along with this punification of ultimate ends comes a corresponding magnification of mediate means.  Finding themselves completely unable to cope with responsibility in any real sense, over meaningful choices in their lives, our professorial types feel impelled to gain mastery over really enormous realities like God.  They slay God, and take the axe to 50 centuries of human history - good or bad.  They exterminate heaven, heedless that they haven’t thought about it enough to replace with anything else.  Popes and potentates, saints and synods - all fall to their victorious might.  Never mind that 5.5 Billion people agree - it’s academic!

And admission to this club: Sociology 101 - the ability to objectify things which are infinitely valuable in and of themselves.  The only value to this crowd?  Shock value.  But be advised, there’s a greater shock on the way.  I have told you, and now you know.

@Matt B:
“Gordon, Prof. Hawking’s quote sounds a bit like Prometheus Bound.  The “ultimate triumph” is the conquest of self, and freedom for our sin-sickened souls from bootless attempts to “know” (control) the mind of God.  But because you’re recommending him, I’ll take Hawking for a poor poet, and not a sick scientist.”
—
You shouldn’t read anything literal into what Hawking said here. He’s definitely a hard atheist. He could alternatively have said: “Then we would understand the true nature of reality.” But had he said that instead the book would not have sold nearly as well.

Gordon Hide on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 3:46 AM (EDT):

“I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Whatever sort of moral system operates in a society it is enforced by various degrees and forms of coercion.”

Does this mean then concepts such as “Justice” are illusory? Or that when things such as slavery existed in society this was fine so long as people agreed with it?

I ask not to be inflamitory, I’m curious to your view of such.  Thanks for responding to my questions.

“Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice.“
But of course it’s all good as long as you call it Catholic social teaching.
“If in the face of this world’s suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false.”
Hhhmmmm. But what of the social teaching? The Compendium? Can humanity do it if the Church tells humanity to do it?
“It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim.”
So it is not man created justice if the Church calls for it through Catholic social teaching? Or is it?
The definition of slavery: bondage, servitude, condition of submission. Is being forced to work for the benefit of someone else slavery or not?

Dear Mr. Hide,

I knew that I’d make myself misunderstood.  Like you I am self-taught.  You state: “On reviewing what I have written I can perhaps understand why you find what I am saying frustrating as I guess you are keen to be able to demonstrate that my moral decision making is worse than yours because mine is not influenced by a belief in gods.”  That’s an incorrect assumption.  Atheists make morally correct decisions all the time.  There is something called the Natural Law which is written on every human heart.  This keeps all of us from being complete moral degenerates.  What I was trying to show is that your theory that morality is simply a set of codes derived by society for what is best for the group as a whole inevitably leads to tyranny.  It can be hard tyranny like the Nazi’s or a soft tyranny like you find in the West.  As far as history declaring it’s vote on Nazi Germany and Communist Russia’s understanding of morality, that is not really the case.  It’s the same morality that you theorize so obviously it’s not dead.  They simply implemented their understanding of “what is best for the group”. 
 
My understanding of morality, which up to this point I have not stated, came when I really thought about why I wanted to be treated with dignity and respect.  Why should I or anyone else be treated with dignity and respect?  Where does my right to be treated this way come from?  We are “taught” to treat others with respect but not given any reason as to why.  Simply saying “because its another person” has no moral authority when, in the same society, you can abort your baby up to the 9th month, execute criminals and verbally demonize those who don’t agree with you.  The beginnings of the answer came in a, to me, very unlikely source; the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Huh? Self-evident? Since when?  The journey has been a long one but in the end I have come to understand that every single human person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect because we are made in the image and likeness of God and the only one who can give that to us is God Himself.  Man cannot give these rights because he will inevitably take them away and call it the greater good. 

If you would like to get into what the dignity of every human person, from conception to natural death, entails I will be happy to do so.  I don’t guarantee that I will be very erudite but I’ll give it my best.  If not that is fine also.  Might I suggest another book?  Love and Responsibility was written by Pope John Paul II back in the 1960’s before he became Pope.  It is a marvelous book on the human person whether you’re an atheist or not. 

Here’s a moral dilemma for you.  Say your daughter comes to you and says: “Dad I’ve been raped and now I’m pregnant.”  What do you do? 

Thanks again,
LAJ

@Colin Gormley:
“Does this mean then concepts such as “Justice” are illusory? Or that when things such as slavery existed in society this was fine so long as people agreed with it?
I ask not to be inflamitory, I’m curious to your view of such.  Thanks for responding to my questions.”
—
No it only means what it says. That is that whatever moral system is the norm for a particular society various means of coercion will be brought to bear on those who violate it. That is what happens in practice.

@LAJ:
“What I was trying to show is that your theory that morality is simply a set of codes derived by society for what is best for the group as a whole inevitably leads to tyranny.”
—
You have misunderstood my position, probably because I didn’t explain it well. Morality is not like the law where a person or persons in authority decide what the moral tenets are going to be in a similar way as they decide what the laws are going to be. May position is that a moral system is organic in nature. It evolves over time according to what works well in practice. Individuals may make decisions relating how to be good. Religious groups, philosophers or political thinkers may propagate such ideas as seem good to them amongst their followers but when push comes to shove, if the society is going to function well, it is the tenets that have utility that will survive in the long run.
As an example, look at contraceptive use by Catholics in the US. It doesn’t matter what the pope says large numbers of American Catholics find his teachings too impractical. That is, on this subject they lack utility.
—
 
“I have come to understand that every single human person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect because we are made in the image and likeness of God and the only one who can give that to us is God Himself.  Man cannot give these rights because he will inevitably take them away and call it the greater good.”
—
I’m sorry. I believe human rights are bestowed by men on men. And your right, men may take away those rights they have bestowed.  When society meets a serious existential threat it’s all hands to the pumps. The government will coerce the population, trampling on its rights at need, if it believes the threat serious enough and they’ll be right to do so.
—
Here’s a moral dilemma for you.  Say your daughter comes to you and says: “Dad I’ve been raped and now I’m pregnant.”  What do you do?
—
I’m sorry again. This is no moral dilemma for me. For me a women’s right to control of her own bodily functions, especially the reproductive functions, trumps almost everything.

Gordon,

Morality was born when natural selection first favoured the genes that caused our far ancestors to act co-operatively.

That sounds an awful lot why “animals” behave the way that they do.  Dogs will be dogs and all that…but they don’t have free will.  We do.  Or do you reject the idea of free will also?

If morality is truly a genetic trait that causes man to act cooperatively, and it has been around for millions of years, then why do we still have war?  Very uncooperative behavior to be sure.  If war is caused by a different gene, then what is the point, in the light of Natural Selection, in having 2 genetic dispositions that oppose one another…one set that says cooperate, the other that says, take what you want, cooperation be damned.  This whole natural selection thing sounds pretty fishy to me. 

Morality hinges on free choices.  If it doesn’t, then it is not morality, but instinct.  No free will, no morality.

Gordon,

I’m sorry. I believe human rights are bestowed by men on men. And your right, men may take away those rights they have bestowed.  When society meets a serious existential threat it’s all hands to the pumps. The government will coerce the population, trampling on its rights at need, if it believes the threat serious enough and they’ll be right to do so.

Look at that statement carefully.  Especially this line… The government will coerce the population, trampling on its rights at need, if it believes the threat serious enough and they’ll be right to do so.

Four things pop out at me that show the inconsistency of your position.
1.  Where did the rights that the government is trampling on come from? 

2.If the society makes the “rules”, and the government enforces them, then who is this “population” of which you speak?  Who is being trampled on? 

3.  “They would be “right” in doing so…”  Who says they are right?  I thought there was no objective “right”, except what is decided by the society.  You see, you have just made a moral judgment call without giving a source for the morality. 

4.  The surety with which you describe the government as “always” stepping in and coercing or forcing their desires on everyone else, smacks of the very universal law that you are debunking.  You imply that it is a forgone conclusion that governments will act in this way.  This is exactly what we are saying.  There are some behaviors that are “in” men, that play out over and over.  Some of them are immoral, some of them are moral.  They are universal.  Since we see them through all societies, throughout all of history, we call them “laws”.  Universal/Natural (and in the case of believers, since we claim to know where these laws came from)Divine Law.  You call them “evolutionary means to an end”.  Call them what you like, they are still universal and reliable.

Almost all societies have and do believe that murder is wrong.  The occasional society that endorses murder is noticed precisely because it is different than what most societies believe.  And almost all other societies cringe when they learn about such societies.  Every sixth grader that hears about some group that eats their own, inevitably says “ewwwwwwww!”. 

Yes, there is universal immorality as well as morality.  Yet, societies forever, attempt to follow a code that does not promote dog eat dog, might makes right…Of course someone always tries to undo the code, and rise to the top by trampling on everyone that gets in their way (and often this is a group of people), but then the protests break out.  NO WAR!  PEACE!...It is because these groups are willing to go against the moral law, that they are able to rise.  And people know it.  Who would defend Hitler?  Who would praise Mao?  We collectively condemn their behavior. We recognize that it is “immoral”...objectively and universally. 

While not all countries or peoples have always embraced every Universal Moral Law, NO country has ever rejected ALL Universal Moral Law.  We can know it, and we can show that we know it.  Precisely by pointing out the villains of history who refused to live by it.

Of course this brings us back to the question of Universal Moral Law and Universal Immoral Law.  Evolutionary explanations do not make sense.  Only when we view man as intrinsically good, with a tendency to be selfish, does the dichotomy makes sense.

Gordon,

I’m sorry again. This is no moral dilemma for me. For me a women’s right to control of her own bodily functions, especially the reproductive functions, trumps almost everything.

Therein lies your dilemma in a nutshell.  “For me”.  You are claiming that what is good for you is all that matters.  Yet earlier you claimed that we make moral decisions based on what is good for all…you called it cooperation.  You can’t have it both ways.  What’s good for you, is not so good for the child that is being aborted.  If morality is based on what’s “good” for the individual, then there is no such thing as “good”.  Which is exactly how this post started…Universal Law can make a claim to “I ought” because “It is good”, while you can only make the claim “I want” because “It feels good”.

@mk:
“That sounds an awful lot why “animals” behave the way that they do.  Dogs will be dogs and all that…but they don’t have free will.  We do.  Or do you reject the idea of free will also?
If morality is truly a genetic trait that causes man to act cooperatively, and it has been around for millions of years, then why do we still have war?  Very uncooperative behavior to be sure.  If war is caused by a different gene, then what is the point, in the light of Natural Selection, in having 2 genetic dispositions that oppose one another…one set that says cooperate, the other that says, take what you want, cooperation be damned.  This whole natural selection thing sounds pretty fishy to me.
Morality hinges on free choices.  If it doesn’t, then it is not morality, but instinct.  No free will, no morality.”
—
Natural selection may be responsible for the genesis of morality but genetic traits are not all that’s involved. One of the reasons why we still have war is that neither the genetic traits nor the cultural conditioning involved in morality were ever meant to stretch beyond the group operating a particular moral code. You shouldn’t let Western man’s modern tendency to include all human beings and even some animals in his “in group”, to some extent, blind you to the historical reality.
Your claim that morality hinges on free will is without foundation. Morality is merely an evolved code of conduct shared by the group operating the system. The presence of the code, and known societal sanctions for ignoring it, influences man to conform whether he has free will or not.  In addition anyone with common sense can see that the general conformance of everyone would have great advantages for society in general and personal conformance will bring personal advantages. All this acts to influence future behaviour whether determined or not.

The presence of the code, and known societal sanctions for ignoring it, influences man to conform whether he has free will or not.

But that’s my point.  Who decides the known societal sanctions for ignoring it, who decided it to begin with?  If it’s “programmed” into us, then we’d all agree.  Abortion shows that this is not so.  How do you reconcile the idea that WE are society, yet Governments can force us to do what THEY want.  Governments are made up of men, and those men are also part of society.  That flies in the face of the idea that we are cooperative.  Either we are predisposed to taking what we want, or we are predisposed to cooperating.  You seem to be claiming two different things. 

Why do some men conform and some men start wars in order to avoid conforming? 

Of course free will enters into it.  Dogs might fight for a bone, but they don’t organize wars.  We are not that short sighted.  We plan, we plot, to get what we want.  YET, you are claiming that we do not plan or plot, we simply cooperate and desire what is best for society.  You’re confusing me.

@mk:

“1.  Where did the rights that the government is trampling on come from?”
—
Their scope and content will have been decided by those in power.
—
“2.If the society makes the ‘rules’, and the government enforces them, then who is this ‘population’ of which you speak?  Who is being trampled on?”
—
The population is all the members of society. It’s the rights which get trampled on, not the people I hope.
—
“3. ‘They would be ‘right’ in doing so…’  Who says they are right?  I thought there was no objective ‘right’, except what is decided by the society.  You see, you have just made a moral judgment call without giving a source for the morality.”
—
No, they would be right in doing so according to the lights of their own moral system. Although thankfully the need seldom arises, survival of the society takes priority over all other moral tenets including rights.
—
“4. The surety with which you describe the government as “always” stepping in and coercing or forcing their desires on everyone else, smacks of the very universal law that you are debunking.”
—
I don’t recall indicating that societies will always fight for survival. On occasion they give up. If they do fight they may balk at the ruthlessness required and fail. However, if they do fight they seldom balk at riding roughshod over all obstacles, including human rights, in their pursuit of survival.

I don’t argue with the fact that there are some moral tenets which are commonly observed in nearly all societies. Given that we are all the same species and that every society faces some common challenges it would be strange if that were not the case.
—
“Of course this brings us back to the question of Universal Moral Law and Universal Immoral Law.  Evolutionary explanations do not make sense.  Only when we view man as intrinsically good, with a tendency to be selfish, does the dichotomy makes sense.”
—
No, the hand of natural selection can be clearly seen in the human tendency to act co-operatively for the general benefit of the group. This is what makes man intrinsically “good” I think.

@mk:
Therein lies your dilemma in a nutshell.  “For me”.  You are claiming that what is good for you is all that matters.  Yet earlier you claimed that we make moral decisions based on what is good for all…you called it cooperation.  You can’t have it both ways.  What’s good for you, is not so good for the child that is being aborted.  If morality is based on what’s “good” for the individual, then there is no such thing as “good”.  Which is exactly how this post started…Universal Law can make a claim to “I ought” because “It is good”, while you can only make the claim “I want” because “It feels good”.

—

Well, it’s clearly not of concern to me personally as I’m not a woman. When I said “for me”, that meant according to the code to which I adhere and, I have to admit, to which I am emotionally attached. I don’t want to “have it both ways”. I hope I make moral decisions which result in actions consistent with the code.

@mk:
“But that’s my point.  Who decides the known societal sanctions for ignoring it, who decided it to begin with?  If it’s “programmed” into us, then we’d all agree.  Abortion shows that this is not so.  How do you reconcile the idea that WE are society, yet Governments can force us to do what THEY want.  Governments are made up of men, and those men are also part of society.  That flies in the face of the idea that we are cooperative.  Either we are predisposed to taking what we want, or we are predisposed to cooperating.  You seem to be claiming two different things. 
Why do some men conform and some men start wars in order to avoid conforming? 
Of course free will enters into it.  Dogs might fight for a bone, but they don’t organize wars.  We are not that short sighted.  We plan, we plot, to get what we want.  YET, you are claiming that we do not plan or plot, we simply cooperate and desire what is best for society.  You’re confusing me.”
—
When you are a member of society you are effectively a party to an unwritten contract. You get to enjoy the many benefits of being a society member and for your part you must adhere to the expected standard of behaviour. It’s a very good deal, at least for most of us in the West. However it is a coercive arrangement. You were not given the option to opt out. If you don’t uphold your end of the deal society will operate sanctions against you. If your offence is serious enough the law will be invoked otherwise you may experience disapproval, eviction from some of the social groups to which you belong, withdrawal of companionship, withdrawal of reciprocity, withdrawal of employment or ostracism.
The minor sanctions may be individual actions by those you have wronged. The major ones involve the criminal justice system.

We are predisposed to co-operate, (within our in-group), otherwise society wouldn’t exist at all. But that doesn’t mean that there are no individuals who don’t hold up their end of the deal. You should have a full set of social emotions and instincts but of course reproduction is not perfect and that may not be the case. You should have received adequate cultural conditioning which socialised you when you were young. But we know that many do not receive the best care. Others experience trauma in early life which leaves psychological scars which affect behaviour.

War takes place between societies or between groups of societies so the moral system operated within one of these societies doesn’t tend to be relevant. However, the international community, the society of nations if you will, does operate a code of conduct of sorts. Currently this code allows for war in certain circumstances. I guess we need to be lectured by experienced diplomats to understand the code and possible sanctions for non-compliance. 
I don’t know if the above is helpful. If not by all means press on.

Posted by Gordon Hide on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 8:03 PM (EDT):

“No it only means what it says. That is that whatever moral system is the norm for a particular society various means of coercion will be brought to bear on those who violate it. That is what happens in practice.”

I’m not sure I understand your response so let me clarify.

I meant in terms of a notion of “Justice.”  Our current society pursues justice not just “for the benefit” of society but believes in a notion of “Justice” that some things are wrong regardless of one’s thoughts on the matter.  How does this arise in the context of moral norms only formed for the benefit of society?

I think in terms of slavery and how slavery was fought in this country based on higher principles.  One woudl think that if “the good of society” was the moral constant, then slavery would still be a fundmental part of this country.  This to me is based on the idea that slavery was an issue that was continuously a point of societal contention, and the effects of that upheaval are still felt today.

@Colin Gormley:
“I meant in terms of a notion of “Justice.”  Our current society pursues justice not just “for the benefit” of society but believes in a notion of “Justice” that some things are wrong regardless of one’s thoughts on the matter.  How does this arise in the context of moral norms only formed for the benefit of society?
I think in terms of slavery and how slavery was fought in this country based on higher principles.  One woudl think that if “the good of society” was the moral constant, then slavery would still be a fundmental part of this country.  This to me is based on the idea that slavery was an issue that was continuously a point of societal contention, and the effects of that upheaval are still felt today.”
—
If we start talking about the various concepts of justice that will really muddy the waters. There is no doubt the coercive power of the state in pursuit of miscreants will sometimes result in injustice as will the actions of individuals when withdrawing the benefits of society from perceived moral backsliders. The fact that such mistakes occur is unfortunate.
In addition, anyone who makes a moral decision may affect his fellows unjustly. Such mistakes occur. I merely note that fairness and justice are things that children believe in but to which adults can only aspire.

Gordon,

I merely note that fairness and justice are things that children believe in but to which adults can only aspire.

But what we are saying is that both children and adults have an idea of what Justice means.  You say that discussing this would be off topic, but it IS the topic.  The idea that justice, beauty, love, morality…are all objective realities (That children can believe and adults can aspire to).  They are not and never have been subjective.  If they were truly subjective, then they would not recur across the board.

Let’s look at an example.  I have $5.00 which is just enough to buy me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  On my way in the door I see a man, obviously mentally ill, who is asking for my help.  Put aside all the arguments of whether or not I am truly helping him by giving him money, or whether he is deserving of money, and focus only on MY thought process.  I can a. Give him the money.  b. keep the money c. split the money.  I want the money.  I have no obligation to this man, as he is not contributing in any meaningful way to society, so giving him the money would not be justified by the “cooperation theory” you put forth earlier.  If I give him the money, it will be going against what I want…a cup of coffee.  Not only will I be giving him money but I will be sacrificing my own pleasure for his.  Why would I do that?  If I keep the money, then I would be more aligned with what you are saying…survival of the fittest…a woman can do with her own body what she wants…If I split the money, I will still not have enough for my double mocha latte, and will have to order something that costs less..another sacrifice on my part, with no apparent benefit to me or to society.

We call this compassion.  Compassion, in this context makes no sense when considering your theory.  Neither does sending money to an unknown entity in a foreign country.  How does feeding the hungry, help the “world” or the common good.  Less mouths to feed would be better for me.

Lastly, slavery has been brought up a number of times as an example of Christians behaving badly.  Why is slavery wrong in your eyes?  Why is it wrong to treat people as property, when you’re entire theory hinges on treating others to benefit yourself or the community at large?  If having slaves means I can live better, then what difference does it make if I “use” another person?  See what I’m getting at?

There is no doubt the coercive power of the state in pursuit of miscreants will sometimes result in injustice as will the actions of individuals when withdrawing the benefits of society from perceived moral backsliders.

Agreed that we don’t know all there is to know about morality.  Some situations are much clearer than others.  A person cannot be held morally culpable if they truly believed they were acting in a moral fashion.  This does not mean that they are not acting immorally, just that they did so in good conscience.  Those slave holders from the Old Testament, were not an indication that slavery was moral, but that men at that time had not evolved to the point that they could see the immorality of the behavior.  We don’t hold a 5 year old to the same standard as a 25 year old.  If a 5 year old lies, we understand that they simply don’t quite get the fact that this is an immoral behavior.  But if a 25 year old lies, we get pretty mad.  Lying is objectively wrong in both cases, just as slavery was wrong in the OT and wrong now.  But society did indeed influence the perception of the situation.  Many things today (abortion, gay marriage) are intrinsically, morally wrong, but not everyone has the moral maturity to understand that.  Our perceptions change, subjectively, given different societies, time periods, knowledge…BUT, the Truth remains objective.  What we see, understand, does not change what is.  If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, no matter what society says.

LAJ - In your comment of Sep 18, 2011 12:35pm you lied.  You express yourself perfectly adequately.

Gordon, your key admission is that “believers can’t imagine how awful (eternal life) would be.”  That’s the whole discussion in a nutshell.  Our faith tells us that God will not force anyone into heaven (there, I’ve said it: heaven).  You are completely free to reject this gracious gift.

I’m thinking you must have been significantly impacted as a kid by that Twilight Zone episode: “To Serve Man” is a cookbook!  But there’s a time in every person’s psychological development where they learn to “let go and love.”  Lacking this, a man is just a boy, whether self-taught or Oxford educated.  Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven belongs to children,” but I’m thinking he meant children who love life, who can play with other children, and can “let it loose” with the best of them.

I want to apologize for all the many ways I’ve mistaken your intentions in these posts.  But I don’t really care about your philosophy.  I care about you.  When you see someone who is tangled up in a web of words and really outdated, silly ideas; someone who is obviously smart enough to know better, but someone who can’t find their way out of the maze - When the world is encouraging that person to “sleeep… sleeep” - When Almighty God has put a premium on that person, an infinite value - you’re constrained to push the limits of propriety and language.

I implore you then, to find it in your heart, in your mind, and in your imagination, to love life, to envision an eternal bliss, and to empower your longing to obtain it.

“Many things today (abortion, gay marriage) are intrinsically, morally wrong, but not everyone has the moral maturity to understand that..”
—my reply: Good point, people who engage in such things as abortion and the gay lifestyle are indeed morally immature—thus stemming from things such as poor up bringing, poor information given in schools, the influence of peers and what the media presents. 

People say that they don’t like religion because “they don’t want to be controlled”—-Yet these are the same people that when a new model of a cell phone is released, they all run out to buy it…Hmmmm, sounds like being controlled by material items to me! 

It’s so sad so many in our society love to swallow the fodder they are given, yet will not open their eyes to true treasure of life—which is filled and guided by what the Lord has given all people the opportunity to have—Living a life with joy, trying to be the best person they can be and, then, being able to reach heaven when we pass on…..

Posted by Gordon Hide on Tuesday, Sep 20, 2011 1:17 PM (EDT):

“If we start talking about the various concepts of justice that will really muddy the waters.”

I’m not sure how.  We are discussing morality correct? 

“There is no doubt the coercive power of the state in pursuit of miscreants will sometimes result in injustice as will the actions of individuals when withdrawing the benefits of society from perceived moral backsliders.”

This is very curious.  Does this mean that there is such a thing as “injustice” that is not relative to a groups wishes?  Or are you simply referring to political authority?

“In addition, anyone who makes a moral decision may affect his fellows unjustly. Such mistakes occur. I merely note that fairness and justice are things that children believe in but to which adults can only aspire.”

Same question.  How can an adult “aspire” to Justice if morality is relative to whatever the group’s current orientation is?  If I and my fellow apply enough “injustice” (and get enough to do the same) have I effectively changed an “injustice” to an aspect of “justice?”

Thanks again for the comments.  Appreciate the discussion.

But I don’t really care about your philosophy.  I care about you.

Huzzah!

Dear Mr. Matt B
I did not lie. I stated no belief in that post. You might have inferred my position from how I stated my questions, but I did not try and explain what I beieve. :)
LAJ

Dear Mr. Hide,
I have not left the discussion, I am simply pressed for time right now. My son is sick and I take care of my grandaughter while my daughter and son-in-law work. Busy bee time here. I will have a response to your last post to me soon. Thank you for your patience.
LAJ

I’ve changed my mind.  I now believe that morality is just a social construct, and not in any way formed or shaped by extraneous factors such as an unnecessary “God.”  Moreover, any concept of an afterlife or heaven is simply a subjective overcompensation to the difficulties inherent in life.

Once I accept that fact, I can easily reconcile the natural outgrowths of this secular-based morality as springing from natural selection and evolutionary forces.  This explains perfectly for me organically developed excresences as the Rwandan massacres, Pol Pot, that whole thing with Stalin and Hitler, our “logical choice” to nuke not just Hiroshima, but Nagasaki as well.  This secular morality explains perfectly China’s “one-child” policy, where half-a-billion potential human beings have been scraped, burned with saline solution, or had their brains sucked out while descending the birth canal.  I now see the inner logic behind Agent Orange.  I now understand why Hollywood is the center of American, and international life, and the imperatative for media moguls to live, eat and breathe, produce, distribute and promote pornography for persons of all ages.  I can see why we would elect a president with absolutely no experience on a platform of hope and change - and then be surprised when his agenda for change involves double and triple of “more of the same.”  (It was a change in quantity, not quality.)  I understand, since religion is a subjective (and quite pernicious) overcompensation, why it must be driven from the public square (in all civilized lands).  I can also see why all vestiges of conscience should be eradicated.  After all, this social construct of morality, unfettered by recidivist tendancies, must reign supreme - if it is truly going to promote happiness, and the survival of the group.  That explains why children are introduced to predatory sexual education, and verisimilitude on TV, where animals are seen in their bloodiest, most voracious nature: we’re preparing these scions of the race for SURVIVAL!!!

Any kind of “heaven” “eternal life” or “God” (presumably a benign “father” figure might give a false impression that life is hospitable, happy or has some potential for anything other than eating, sleeping, copulating or excretion; with a timeout for the customary 3 minutes hate.  It shall not be tolerated!!!!

LAJ - I misspoke about “lying.”  Sorry.

Gordon’s taken a lot of ASCII to say “Might makes right.”

@mk:
But what we are saying is that both children and adults have an idea of what Justice means.  You say that discussing this would be off topic, but it IS the topic.  The idea that justice, beauty, love, morality…are all objective realities (That children can believe and adults can aspire to).  They are not and never have been subjective.  If they were truly subjective, then they would not recur across the board.
—
I don’t say that it’s off topic only that it’s a morass that will lead nowhere. We do have an innate sense of fairness/justice that is part of our instincts as social animals. That instinct is apparent within the moral codes that develop.
—
Your example was more about empathy than fairness. It also shows an at best crude understanding of natural selection. It was natural selection that gave you instinctive fairness and compassion.
Fairness and compassion occur in any account of practical morality including mine. I don’t understand why you think otherwise.
—
Lastly, slavery has been brought up a number of times as an example of Christians behaving badly.  Why is slavery wrong in your eyes?  Why is it wrong to treat people as property, when you’re entire theory hinges on treating others to benefit yourself or the community at large?  If having slaves means I can live better, then what difference does it make if I “use” another person?  See what I’m getting at?
Slavery goes against our natural empathic feelings towards others. It violates our instinctive sense of fairness and, on a practical level, forced labour has never been very efficient. Willing workers justly rewarded do much better. A good moral system works in harmony with our natural social instincts and encourages them.

@mk:

A person cannot be held morally culpable if they truly believed they were acting in a moral fashion.  This does not mean that they are not acting immorally, just that they did so in good conscience.

Yes, but many serious judicial errors have been made by not holding many of such people criminally responsible for their crimes.
While objective facts about the real world can be established by science and are seldom revised objectivity about morality is harder to come by.
In my view only the long verdict of history can indicate whether a particular set of moral tenets had validity for a particular society at a particular time.
In the meantime I think all we can do is argue for the efficacy of what we believe are good moral ideas and note the dysfunctional nature of societies we believe are employing bad moral ideas.
Here is an argument against the idea that good moral behaviour is a “one size fits all” affair:
A moral code restricts the personal freedom of individuals in order to promote co-operation of all types within a society. But personal freedom, apart from promoting personal happiness, promotes creativity, experiment and innovation. These things are important to a society if it is to remain dynamically flexible in a changing world.
The more a society is under pressure from the environment and other competitive societies the more it will need to promote co-operative behaviour and thus maximize societal efficiency.
So it therefore stands to reason that societies under different levels of competitive pressure should be promoting different levels of co-operative activity through their respective moral codes.

@Matt:

I implore you then, to find it in your heart, in your mind, and in your imagination, to love life, to envision an eternal bliss, and to empower your longing to obtain it.

I think I am already fairly fond of life and will regret “shuffling off this mortal coil” but eternity is a different matter. If you cannot imagine the horror of having no hope of new experiences or having no thought you haven’t thought a million times before then I guess my comment was valid.

@Matt:

I implore you then, to find it in your heart, in your mind, and in your imagination, to love life, to envision an eternal bliss, and to empower your longing to obtain it.

Your only surcease from the horror of eternity would be a bad memory.

@Colin Gormley:

This is very curious.  Does this mean that there is such a thing as “injustice” that is not relative to a groups wishes?  Or are you simply referring to political authority?
How can an adult “aspire” to Justice if morality is relative to whatever the group’s current orientation is?  If I and my fellow apply enough “injustice” (and get enough to do the same) have I effectively changed an “injustice” to an aspect of “justice?”

Natural selection has gifted us with an instinct for fairness/justice. If you want to claim that what this instinct imparts is objective fact you should note that although much time is required instincts, like all other aspects of biological physiology, are prone to evolve.

@Matt B:

I’ve changed my mind.  I now believe that morality is just a social construct, and not in any way formed or shaped by extraneous factors such as an unnecessary “God.”  Moreover, any concept of an afterlife or heaven is simply a subjective overcompensation to the difficulties inherent in life.

Once I accept that fact, I can easily reconcile the natural outgrowths of this secular-based morality as springing from natural selection and evolutionary forces.  This explains perfectly for me organically developed excresences as the Rwandan massacres, Pol Pot, that whole thing with Stalin and Hitler, our “logical choice” to nuke not just Hiroshima, but Nagasaki as well.  This secular morality explains perfectly China’s “one-child” policy, where half-a-billion potential human beings have been scraped, burned with saline solution, or had their brains sucked out while descending the birth canal.  I now see the inner logic behind Agent Orange.  I now understand why Hollywood is the center of American, and international life, and the imperatative for media moguls to live, eat and breathe, produce, distribute and promote pornography for persons of all ages.  I can see why we would elect a president with absolutely no experience on a platform of hope and change - and then be surprised when his agenda for change involves double and triple of “more of the same.”  (It was a change in quantity, not quality.)  I understand, since religion is a subjective (and quite pernicious) overcompensation, why it must be driven from the public square (in all civilized lands).  I can also see why all vestiges of conscience should be eradicated.  After all, this social construct of morality, unfettered by recidivist tendancies, must reign supreme - if it is truly going to promote happiness, and the survival of the group.  That explains why children are introduced to predatory sexual education, and verisimilitude on TV, where animals are seen in their bloodiest, most voracious nature: we’re preparing these scions of the race for SURVIVAL!!!

Any kind of “heaven” “eternal life” or “God” (presumably a benign “father” figure might give a false impression that life is hospitable, happy or has some potential for anything other than eating, sleeping, copulating or excretion; with a timeout for the customary 3 minutes hate.  It shall not be tolerated!!!!

Yes, very amusing as long as you realise that a similar diatribe replete with similar misattributions could be made about the ideas you advocate.

@Mark Shea:

Gordon’s taken a lot of ASCII to say “Might makes right.”

I don’t advocate “might makes right” I merely point out that moral codes of behaviour are coercive in nature because they constrain personal freedom and are enforced by the community.

Gordon,

You’re confusing me again…look at these statements that you have made.

Slavery goes against our natural empathic feelings towards others. It violates our instinctive sense of fairness…
A good moral system works in harmony with our natural social instincts and encourages them…
We do have an innate sense of fairness/justice that is part of our instincts as social animals. That instinct is apparent within the moral codes that develop…
While objective facts about the real world can be established by science and are seldom revised objectivity about morality is harder to come by.
In my view only the long verdict of history can indicate whether a particular set of moral tenets had validity for a particular society at a particular time.
In the meantime I think all we can do is argue for the efficacy of what we believe are good moral ideas and note the dysfunctional nature of societies we believe are employing bad moral ideas…

On the one hand you say that certain traits are innate, instinctual…like fairness, justice.  Which means that moral traits (fairness and justice being moral terms) are innate.  Then you say that each society must decide for itself based on it’s needs at the time what will be considered moral and immoral.  How can slavery go against our instinctual moral understanding of fairness, when you have stated that morality is relative and not innate?  Either slavery is wrong across the board because it goes against our innate moral code, OR it is right in societies that say that it is right.  If you hold that slavery is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances, based on an innate sense of fairness, then you are admitting that there is an objective morality.
Is fairness always to be desired, across the board, across time, across societies?  Is justice?  If you admit that at least in the case of fairness and justice, there IS an objective morality, then you have just described one of the Universal/Natural/Divine laws.  If there is one, there could be more.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  This is what I am trying to get at.

As for my rudimentary understanding of Natural Selection…is it not true that traits that will further the propagation of the species are kept, while those that endanger the species are lost?  If so, then how is it that empathy and compassion are kept, when clearly they have no true purpose for propagating the species, but greed and desire for power are also kept when clearly they are about individual gain with no regard whatsoever for the species as a whole?  How is it that self sacrifice is considered good, but so is dog eat dog? 

My example was never meant to be about justice or fairness.  It was always about compassion.  I said so right in my comment.  Why is compassion an innate trait?  Why would I give that man my $5.00?  How does that further the species OR myself?  You never answered that question.  And yet people give to charities all the time.  WHY?  How does that work in the theory of Natural Selection?  Why are human beings the only animals that do so?  Not give their lives for their families or young, but give of themselves for total strangers? 

What I am trying to say, is that all of those traits…compassion, empathy, justice, fairness…all of them are what we mean when we say Universal Law.  You seem to subscribe to the traits, but balk at the idea of lumping them into something and giving them a name as a whole.
All men love.  All men respect life.  All men play fair.  All men feel compassion.  All men value truth.  (Obviously, I don’t mean “to a man”)

So you call this Universal Law “Natural Selection” and say that it developed through evolution.  We call it Divine Law and claim that it is God given.  But right now we are not trying to establish where these “laws” come from.  We are only trying to establish that these “laws” exist.  You keep claiming that they do not, and then giving examples of how they do.

@mk

Then you say that each society must decide for itself based on it’s needs at the time what will be considered moral and immoral.

I don’t quite say that. I say moral codes of conduct evolve and advance with the zeitgeist. I think they evolve in a direction that makes the society more likely to survive. If the moral code atrophies or evolves in a direction that reduces societal co-operation then the society will fail.

How can slavery go against our instinctual moral understanding of fairness, when you have stated that morality is relative and not innate?  Either slavery is wrong across the board because it goes against our innate moral code, OR it is right in societies that say that it is right.  If you hold that slavery is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances, based on an innate sense of fairness, then you are admitting that there is an objective morality.

I think it’s a mistake to regard natural instincts as moral laws. Instincts and emotions are not arrived at by human rational processes and although powerful motivators they can’t be regarded like the rational rules that people create to govern behaviour
For instance, the reason that it is possible for societies to have slaves without violating their instinct for fairness is that social instincts and emotions developed to operate only within the “in-group”. Just as wolves do not advance pack privileges to wolves from another pack so it is with humans. So human beings are able to be inhumane to their fellows by not advancing “in-group” privileges to them. In this way you get inhumanity without violating natural instincts and emotions.
This limitation of social instincts and emotions is often overlooked by us in the west because we have advanced “in-group” privileges to almost everyone, to some extent.
In is instructive to note that before the Nazis embarked on the “final solution” they used propaganda to de-humanise the Jews and thus removed them from the “in-group” of the average German. 

Is fairness always to be desired, across the board, across time, across societies?  Is justice?  If you admit that at least in the case of fairness and justice, there IS an objective morality, then you have just described one of the Universal/Natural/Divine laws.  If there is one, there could be more.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  This is what I am trying to get at.

What I admit is that social instincts and emotions exist (more or less across the board). And, as I have explained, they can be easily manipulated. After all, they were not developed primarily to make us good but to improve the survival chances of our genes.

As for my rudimentary understanding of Natural Selection…is it not true that traits that will further the propagation of the species are kept, while those that endanger the species are lost?  If so, then how is it that empathy and compassion are kept, when clearly they have no true purpose for propagating the species, but greed and desire for power are also kept when clearly they are about individual gain with no regard whatsoever for the species as a whole?  How is it that self sacrifice is considered good, but so is dog eat dog?

Social instincts and emotions were favoured by natural selection because co-operating individuals can achieve so much more than any number of individuals acting independently. In other words the whole can be so much greater than the sum of the parts. The individuals in a co-operating group stood a better chance of surviving to reproduce. Thus their genes were favoured. So your view that the social emotions and instincts had no role in the survival of our ancestors is far from the truth.
Certainly other rather more unattractive traits survive, but as you point out they too have their survival value though they don’t necessarily assist societal cohesion. It is thought that self sacrifice or altruism came into existence because it still aids in the survival of related genes even though he who sacrifices may not survive personally. Of course today society is very large and a man may give up his life for someone he is only very distantly related to. Still, that’s instinct for you. We can be thankful that in this case instinct is manipulated for the general benefit.
When you say “dog eat dog” is considered good I presume you mean that competition is considered good. Well, I’m no expert but I’d say that a certain amount of competition can lead to general improvement and increased effort. When competition results in violence it clearly has a serious downside.

What I admit is that social instincts and emotions exist (more or less across the board). And, as I have explained, they can be easily manipulated. After all, they were not developed primarily to make us good but to improve the survival chances of our genes.

I agree that there are social instincts.  But these are not necessarily moral instincts.  A social instinct might say homosexuality is an acceptable mode of behavior.  But it does not speak to the morality of the behavior.  Or a social instinct might say that being out after dark is dangerous, therefore we declare a curfew.  But curfews are not moral or immoral.

What you have brought up is compassion, fairness, justice…these are specific to moral codes and may or may not be embraced by a given society.  This is where “ought” comes in.  Our society says that it is okay to abort a child living in the womb of it’s mother, if the mother decides she does not want the child.  That is a social law.  But it doesn’t make abortion morally right.  Yes, obviously, societies manipulate their laws to fit what they “want”.  That’s what Mark says early on in his post.  What we are trying to determine, is not what societies make of these moral instincts, but whether or not these moral instincts exist at all.  You have admitted that they do.  So if it is true that moral instincts exist, and they are relatively the same for all men, then the word “ought” can indeed be applied.  We OUGHT to follow those moral instincts.  We OUGHT not steal.  We OUGHT not lie.  We OUGHT not take the lives of unborn children.

What our society (and others) have done, is ignore the “OUGHT” in favor of the “I want”.  Which means we have willfully chosen to go against our instincts (which as you have pointed out are there for the benefit of humanity as a whole) in favor of following our desires. 

This is the crux of Lewis’ argument in the abolition of man.  IF men agree/recognize that there is a set of Universal Laws that govern morality, or how men “ought” to act, then a society will flourish.  IF a society refuses to acknowledge this and acts only upon their emotional/material needs, then the society will fall apart.  He notes that it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not those who believe in Objective Moral Laws agree on where those laws came from.  The success of a society does not rest on the source of the moral code, but on the existence of the code.

What you seem to to saying is that there is a moral code, but there are also conflicting instincts that cause us to act against that moral code.  That’s a given.  That’s the point.  Only when we understand that there is an objective moral code, can we also understand that some of our desires go against that code, and we can say “WE OUGHT”.  Where you are running into trouble is in not separating the different types of instincts.  Moral instincts are not social instincts, although they can be, and often times moral instincts are in direct conflict with social instincts.  The question is, which do we follow?  Might makes right, dog eat dog, is an instinct.  It will definitely advance the individual, and the cream will rise (of course this particular cream will curdle).  Moral instincts will also advance the individual, as well as society, and while there might not be much cream, there will certainly be enough milk to go around.

So which do we follow?  Our individual instincts that say me first?  Or the ones that say we are all in this together?  With individual instincts, we end up with “I want” and with “Cooperative” instincts we get “We Ought”. 

Which society has not failed, and why?  Is a family a society?  Is the Catholic Church a society?

Gordon - You’re right, that was no reasoned response.  More like a rash that swept across my body.  Luckily the antibiotics are still working.

On the matter of eternal life, I think you’re confusing eternal life with Nietze’s idea about “eternal return.”  Quite a difference there.

When Odysseus returns to Ithaca from his journeys he remains to be fully reunited with his wife, and restored to his position as king.  In his last battle with the usurping suitors, he utilizes a stange and hard to visualize attack.  He hurls a javelin through a series of small round loops, which are depicted as lining the banquet hall.  From Homers description there are many of them - all lined up.  This unlikely pitch catches the chief usurper by surprise and pins him to his undeserved seat on Odyseus’ chair.  He is dead, the kindom is restored, Penelope’s reputation is vindicated.  Telemachus is avenged.

Those strange loops are the formal logical objections to eternity.  They represent the problems usurpers have in accepting this traditionally hallowed idea.  Ulysses overcomes the weedy garden of materialists, darwinists, utilitarians and positivists when he pierces these objections, eliminating in a uniquely classical way the competition.

Posted by Gordon Hide on Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 5:21 AM (EDT):

“Natural selection has gifted us with an instinct for fairness/justice.”

This is a highly dubious claim.  The 20th century alone has experienced death on a scale unimagined in human history. 

“If you want to claim that what this instinct imparts is objective fact you should note that although much time is required instincts, like all other aspects of biological physiology, are prone to evolve.”

Again there is no evidence to support this.  If anything the 20th century proved far more warlike than any century prior.  Slavery has gone in and out of fashion in a variety of cultures (and is making a comeback in Eastern Europe, etc.)

There is a larger problem with this though.  It assumes that there is “progress” in evolution of morality.  This means that there is some objective measure that this morality improvement can be measured by.  Without that one cannot measure if we are even going in the right direction.

Yet you claim that morality is simply a way for society to regulate itself for the good of the herd.  You have yet to describe what biological imperative that moves this development on.  Again I refer back to slavery, as the world got along fine when the powerful enslaved the weaker.  If anything this is a more accurate description of your philosophy.

@mk:

I agree that there are social instincts.  But these are not necessarily moral instincts.  A social instinct might say homosexuality is an acceptable mode of behavior.  But it does not speak to the morality of the behavior.  Or a social instinct might say that being out after dark is dangerous, therefore we declare a curfew.  But curfews are not moral or immoral.

I don’t claim that social emotions and instincts should be part of a moral code. I only note that if a code demands that someone goes against their natural instincts or emotions there will be a danger of cognitive dissonance with unknown results.

What you have brought up is compassion, fairness, justice…these are specific to moral codes and may or may not be embraced by a given society.  This is where “ought” comes in.  Our society says that it is okay to abort a child living in the womb of it’s mother, if the mother decides she does not want the child.  That is a social law.  But it doesn’t make abortion morally right.  Yes, obviously, societies manipulate their laws to fit what they “want”.  That’s what Mark says early on in his post.  What we are trying to determine, is not what societies make of these moral instincts, but whether or not these moral instincts exist at all.  You have admitted that they do.  So if it is true that moral instincts exist, and they are relatively the same for all men, then the word “ought” can indeed be applied.  We OUGHT to follow those moral instincts.  We OUGHT not steal.  We OUGHT not lie.  We OUGHT not take the lives of unborn children.

What is morally right is that which is in the moral code, (or possibly that which is the lesser of two evils in particular circumstances).
Whether the code itself is fit for purpose will have to wait on the judgement of history. Although some codes may be so bad that the degree of dysfunction produced is obvious to an observer.

What our society (and others) have done, is ignore the “OUGHT” in favor of the “I want”.  Which means we have willfully chosen to go against our instincts (which as you have pointed out are there for the benefit of humanity as a whole) in favor of following our desires.

Social instincts and emotions exist primarily because, in the past, they led to the survival of our genes. If, as a by-product, the behaviour they encourage is something you define as “good” that’s fine.
However you should note that gene replication is not perfect and some people lack some of the more important traits. Given enough time traits evolve, perhaps in a way that you might not approve of.

This is the crux of Lewis’ argument in the abolition of man.  IF men agree/recognize that there is a set of Universal Laws that govern morality, or how men “ought” to act, then a society will flourish.  IF a society refuses to acknowledge this and acts only upon their emotional/material needs, then the society will fall apart.  He notes that it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not those who believe in Objective Moral Laws agree on where those laws came from.  The success of a society does not rest on the source of the moral code, but on the existence of the code.

I agree that the success of a society depends on it operating a suitable moral code

What you seem to to saying is that there is a moral code, but there are also conflicting instincts that cause us to act against that moral code.  That’s a given.  That’s the point.  Only when we understand that there is an objective moral code, can we also understand that some of our desires go against that code, and we can say “WE OUGHT”.  Where you are running into trouble is in not separating the different types of instincts.  Moral instincts are not social instincts, although they can be, and often times moral instincts are in direct conflict with social instincts.  The question is, which do we follow?  Might makes right, dog eat dog, is an instinct.  It will definitely advance the individual, and the cream will rise (of course this particular cream will curdle).  Moral instincts will also advance the individual, as well as society, and while there might not be much cream, there will certainly be enough milk to go around.

So which do we follow?  Our individual instincts that say me first?  Or the ones that say we are all in this together?  With individual instincts, we end up with “I want” and with “Cooperative” instincts we get “We Ought”.

I agree that some instinct and emotions are important for social cohesion and some less so. Yet they all must have had importance or they wouldn’t have been selected for. I would guess that a balance is what’s required. One that allows the individual to conform to the moral code of society yet also seek some self interest. 

Which society has not failed, and why?  Is a family a society?  Is the Catholic Church a society?

Yes, the human situation is very complicated. We all tend to be members of several overlapping “in groups”, the nation, the religion, the family, the ethnic group, the sexual orientation, etcetera, etcetera
Every group that is currently extant has not yet failed. On this view the Roman Catholic Church is doing pretty well in the survival stakes. Families, (dynasties), obviously only last until the last member dies without descendents.

@Matt B:
Well, if you want to live for eternity that’s fine, but leave me out.

@Colin Gormley:

This is a highly dubious claim.  The 20th century alone has experienced death on a scale unimagined in human history.

Here is a link to Scientific American article which refers to the instinct for fairness:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ethical-dog

Again there is no evidence to support this.  If anything the 20th century proved far more warlike than any century prior.  Slavery has gone in and out of fashion in a variety of cultures (and is making a comeback in Eastern Europe, etc.)

All traits in all species are prone to evolutionary pressure and all are a result of evolution by natural selection.

There is a larger problem with this though.  It assumes that there is “progress” in evolution of morality.  This means that there is some objective measure that this morality improvement can be measured by.  Without that one cannot measure if we are even going in the right direction.

I have made no claim to progress or even change in a particular case. Assuming change does occur it will be in a direction which increases the chance for gene survival within the environment in which the change occurred.

Yet you claim that morality is simply a way for society to regulate itself for the good of the herd.  You have yet to describe what biological imperative that moves this development on.  Again I refer back to slavery, as the world got along fine when the powerful enslaved the weaker.  If anything this is a more accurate description of your philosophy.

More specifically I claim that natural selection favoured the social instincts and emotions because they improved the survival chances of our genes. I propose that the objective of co-operative social behaviour is still survival. In modern terms co-operative behaviour is enforced by society through a moral code, (and the law of course).
As for slavery, its scale is vastly reduced from times past. So, history has largely passed judgement on slavery as a moral tenet which aids societal survival.
It does appear to me that some societies are gradually improving both in their ability to survive and in the general wellbeing of their members. But that’s only anecdotal observation.

Gordon,

I only note that if a code demands that someone goes against their natural instincts or emotions there will be a danger of cognitive dissonance with unknown results.

Huh?  I thought we had already established that fairness and justice are innate.  What you seem to be calling instincts.  If I am splitting a piece of cake with my younger brother, and my “instincts” tells me I want the bigger piece, but a counter instinct tells me to be fair, then the “code” demands that I split the piece of cake equally.  According to you, if I play “fair” and split the cake evenly, I am now in danger of cognitive dissonance???  What the heck does that mean, and what does it have to do with anything.  Of course there is dissonance!  Morality dictates that I OUGHT to be fair, which is contrary to my selfish instinct, which is to gobble up the whole piece myself.  But how does that say anything about whether or not that instinct to be fair is innate, and part of an objective moral law?

On this view the Roman Catholic Church is doing pretty well in the survival stakes.

And why do you think that is?  IF, as you say, our genes replicate to embrace the traits that will lead to the best chance at survival, and we see the Catholic Church going strong (warts and all) after all this time, we must ask ourselves why?  Could it be, that we have recognized, not through our gene pool, but through our intelligence, free will and revelation, certain moral truths that foster the survival and propagation of the human race?  And when you say Every group that is currently extant has not yet failed. all you are really saying is that the human race has survived this long, but you have not named a “society” that has.  Not one that is thriving.  All you have said is that people are still here.  I am asking for an example of a society that has survived and flourished (meaning it’s members are content and fulfilled) for any length of time.  Say 2,000 years or more.

Gordon,

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how giving the man outside the Starbucks advances the human race.

Posted by Gordon Hide on Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 6:25 PM (EDT):

“Here is a link to Scientific American article which refers to the instinct for fairness:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ethical-dog”

There is no reason to assume that the traits exibited by dogs in the study are an analog to human moral reasoning.  This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

“All traits in all species are prone to evolutionary pressure and all are a result of evolution by natural selection.”

This does not answer my objection.  If natural selection (i.e. survival) is the basis then slavery is the perfect example of a stronger society subjugating a weaker one.  Natural selection at its finest. 

“I have made no claim to progress or even change in a particular case. Assuming change does occur it will be in a direction which increases the chance for gene survival within the environment in which the change occurred.”

No but you do claim “progress” in a general sense.  I have thrown out several examples that the last century or so illustrating warfare and societal ills have increased, not decreased.  Abortion, contraception and a variety of other popular views actually lead toward extinction, not survival.  There is no emperical evidence that we are progressing in a survival of the species sense.  If anything societies that embrace this notion are on the verge of sterilizing themselves out of existence. 

“I propose that the objective of co-operative social behaviour is still survival.”

There are many ways to survive that have nothing to do with being “good” in a society.  I can just as easily benefit myself at the expense of society.  And if I accumulate the power to get away with it why not? 

“As for slavery, its scale is vastly reduced from times past. So, history has largely passed judgement on slavery as a moral tenet which aids societal survival.”

Why would we assume that?  Since slavery went the way of the dodo in the ancient world, only to be resurrected during the colonial era, to going out to coming back in again.  If anything we are in a cycle, not progression. 

There is simply too much counter-data to assume that morality is ultimately about survival.  Too many universal traits exist in a varity of cross-societal samples can only lead to the conclusion that there is something intrinsic to morality.  Something universal.  Something constant.

Natural selection is a fine tool for evaluating tree frogs.  But it fares poorly in explaining human behavior.  It’s just a scientific metaphor for “life in general,” but not real knowledge.  It’s a heuristic, like the Ptolemaic world-view before it, and Einstein’s relativity, which hasn’t captured the attention of the masses like Darwin.  Why?  Because Darwinism appeals to the most concupiscent aspects of human nature, and panders to our naturally morbid curiousity about the ghastly, the gruesome and the sexually perverse.  A Darwinistic morality is almost a contradiction in terms.  What’s more, a “scientific approach” to natural selection is not absolved by its “objectivity” from conspiracy with the concupiscense or from pandering. 

Morality begins where darwinism ends; moral choices specifically negate the claims of our fallen nature.  That’s why they require free will (freed from natural desires and inclinations); that’s why they’re meritorious (they require conscious effort and choice, and are not all “feel good” or automatic), and that’s why they elevate us into the supernatural.  Moral choices have been made by folks for many more centuries than darwinism has been around; have been exquisitely documented since before the advent of writing; and the results of these choices have been duplicated in countless (how scientific is that)!  If faith and religion did not work, why have they outlasted every materialism, and why has they absorbed countless iterations of scientific discovery?

Your use of a scientific method masks (badly) your advocacy of the materialism which has risen up in the last decades to perform the prodigies I mentioned in prior post.  It is one head of a many headed dragon.  Against this backdrop, the saints still raise their refrain:  Holy Holy Holy is the Lamb that was slain!  How does natural selection account for the Crucifixion?  Or is that rather a “stumbling block?”

@mk:

Huh?  I thought we had already established that fairness and justice are innate.  What you seem to be calling instincts.  If I am splitting a piece of cake with my younger brother, and my “instincts” tells me I want the bigger piece, but a counter instinct tells me to be fair, then the “code” demands that I split the piece of cake equally.  According to you, if I play “fair” and split the cake evenly, I am now in danger of cognitive dissonance???  What the heck does that mean, and what does it have to do with anything.  Of course there is dissonance!  Morality dictates that I OUGHT to be fair, which is contrary to my selfish instinct, which is to gobble up the whole piece myself.  But how does that say anything about whether or not that instinct to be fair is innate, and part of an objective moral law?

Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual believes in two things which are mutually exclusive. Some people are able to maintain this strange state of affairs by a process of mental compartmentalisation. If, for instance you have an unshakeable belief in the validity of your instincts but your religion, (in which you also have an unshakeable belief), tells you to disregard your instinct in a particular case you may resolve the issue in favour of one or the other. However, when some people are confronted with a contradiction between two strongly held beliefs they do not reject either but instead go in for some form of mental gymnastics which allows them to continue to believe in both contradictory things at the same time. This is called cognitive dissonance.

And why do you think that is?  IF, as you say, our genes replicate to embrace the traits that will lead to the best chance at survival, and we see the Catholic Church going strong (warts and all) after all this time, we must ask ourselves why?  Could it be, that we have recognized, not through our gene pool, but through our intelligence, free will and revelation, certain moral truths that foster the survival and propagation of the human race?  And when you say Every group that is currently extant has not yet failed. all you are really saying is that the human race has survived this long, but you have not named a “society” that has.  Not one that is thriving.  All you have said is that people are still here.  I am asking for an example of a society that has survived and flourished (meaning it’s members are content and fulfilled) for any length of time.  Say 2,000 years or more.

I don’t think that the longevity of the Roman Catholic Faith has much to do with genes. It’s probably more to do with strength and continuity of the societies which adhere to that faith. Many of the world’s major religions are even older. Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto may all be even older.
It could well be true, as I think you are trying to intimate, that the moral code advocated by Catholicism has evolved sufficiently over time to support the strength of the societies that have adhered to it.

@mk:

I am asking for an example of a society that has survived and flourished (meaning it’s members are content and fulfilled) for any length of time.  Say 2,000 years or more.

Japan

@mk:

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how giving the man outside the Starbucks advances the human race.

Displaying compassion to one’s fellows improves the cohesion of society. Empathy is one of the social emotions. As I’m all too fond of saying, it developed over millions of years. It has survived the long school of hard knocks. The fact that we are here today as social animals proves its efficacy as social glue.
Besides that, giving away your money makes you feel self righteous and smug. The self confident go about their business without hesitation and indecision and may well make a better contribution to society.

@Matt B:

Natural selection is a fine tool for evaluating tree frogs.  But it fares poorly in explaining human behavior.  It’s just a scientific metaphor for “life in general,” but not real knowledge.  It’s a heuristic, like the Ptolemaic world-view before it, and Einstein’s relativity, which hasn’t captured the attention of the masses like Darwin.  Why?  Because Darwinism appeals to the most concupiscent aspects of human nature, and panders to our naturally morbid curiousity about the ghastly, the gruesome and the sexually perverse.  A Darwinistic morality is almost a contradiction in terms.  What’s more, a “scientific approach” to natural selection is not absolved by its “objectivity” from conspiracy with the concupiscense or from pandering.

I actually know very little about the theory of evolution by natural selection. I never had a biology lesson. But I am content to go along with the overwhelming consensus of scientists who attest that it gives many useful insights into the human condition and indeed all life on Earth. It is the only realistic model that we have which explains why we are the way we are.

Morality begins where darwinism ends; moral choices specifically negate the claims of our fallen nature.  That’s why they require free will (freed from natural desires and inclinations); that’s why they’re meritorious (they require conscious effort and choice, and are not all “feel good” or automatic), and that’s why they elevate us into the supernatural.  Moral choices have been made by folks for many more centuries than darwinism has been around; have been exquisitely documented since before the advent of writing; and the results of these choices have been duplicated in countless (how scientific is that)!  If faith and religion did not work, why have they outlasted every materialism, and why has they absorbed countless iterations of scientific discovery?

I make no claims about our “fallen nature”. It sounds like a religious phrase to me designed to increase the dependency of the faithful on religion. Free will is unlikely to exist as it denies the law of causality upon which all scientifically repeatable experimentation depends. Morality is certainly old and predates religion by millions of years. It can be observed in animals who, as far as we can tell, don’t have religion. The fact that something has social utility, that is that it works, doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that all religions have utility but they all can’t be true tells you that.

Your use of a scientific method masks (badly) your advocacy of the materialism which has risen up in the last decades to perform the prodigies I mentioned in prior post.  It is one head of a many headed dragon.  Against this backdrop, the saints still raise their refrain:  Holy Holy Holy is the Lamb that was slain!  How does natural selection account for the Crucifixion?  Or is that rather a “stumbling block?”

I wouldn’t edify my position with the term “scientific method”. I have no wish to mask my materialism. I am an out-and-out materialist. Crucifixion was a form of societal punishment. Societal punishment is used by society to enforce its moral code and enforce the power of the state. In the case of both the moral code and state power their genesis is apparent in the evolutionary development of the co-operating social group.

Gordon,

The fact that we are here today as social animals proves its efficacy as social glue.

No.  It proves that people have been copulating, and the result is more people.  But IF I accept that compassion is a social glue, you have yet to tell me how it works for the furtherance of humanity.  Saying we feel smug, therefore self confident is a stretch.  I could also forgo giving him the $5.00 and tell myself that I am better than him.  This would also make me feel smug.  How is society helped by giving $5.00 to the homeless guy.  Again, from a Natural Selection viewpoint, society would be better off without him.  Useless eaters and all that. 

Japan…Japan has existed as a “country” for thousands of years, yes.  Has it kept the same form of government?  Is it the same now as it was 2,000 years ago?  Or has it gone through numerous changes.  Not superficial changes, but complete overhauls.  It only became a psuedo democratic state in 1947.  Which is a BIG change.  Mind you, I’m not saying that no country has met the criteria.  I’m saying that countries that do, should be looked at to see if Universal Law and it’s adherence play a role in the success or failure of such societies.  Malta comes to mind.

Sunday, Sep 18, 2011 9:03 AM (EDT):
Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 9:53 AM (EDT):
@mk:

No.  It proves that people have been copulating, and the result is more people.  But IF I accept that compassion is a social glue, you have yet to tell me how it works for the furtherance of humanity.  Saying we feel smug, therefore self confident is a stretch.  I could also forgo giving him the $5.00 and tell myself that I am better than him.  This would also make me feel smug.  How is society helped by giving $5.00 to the homeless guy.  Again, from a Natural Selection viewpoint, society would be better off without him.  Useless eaters and all that.

It may be that society would be better off without the economically useless. But the steps taken to murder such people would have repercussions much worse than the burden society currently carries on their behalf. Then there is the possibility that your beggar may not be earning money but he could still have significant social value to those that know him. After all he’s already provided you with an opportunity to feel smug. But your blinkered outlook makes you a good candidate to sit on the committee that decides who gets the chop should one ever be formed. I explained why the social instinct and emotions are favoured in my post to you of Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 9:53 AM (EDT). You can also find an explanation in this post: Sunday, Sep 18, 2011 9:03 AM (EDT). I’m truly devastated that you’re not hanging on every word that I write.
</blockquote> Japan…Japan has existed as a “country” for thousands of years, yes.  Has it kept the same form of government?  Is it the same now as it was 2,000 years ago?  Or has it gone through numerous changes.  Not superficial changes, but complete overhauls.  It only became a psuedo democratic state in 1947.  Which is a BIG change.  Mind you, I’m not saying that no country has met the criteria.  I’m saying that countries that do, should be looked at to see if Universal Law and it’s adherence play a role in the success or failure of such societies.  Malta comes to mind. </blockquote>
No organisation has ever lasted for a long time without significant change. The ability to evolve to meet new challenges is why they survive. Malta has been overrun be foreign invaders more times than you can shake a stick at.

Aside to Paul Rimmer: Just wanted to say that time, not inclination, has been the issue. I would have liked to respond. Another time perhaps.
 
Aside to Gordon Hide: You are what the atheist Rorty calls a theologian/metaphysician. I wish I had more time to make this clearer, to other readers if not to you.

Gordon-
ON NATURAL SELECTION:
“It is the only realistic model that we have which explains why we are the way we are.”
Your reliance on “an overwhelming consensus of scientists” to reach this determination is a little self-serving, don’t you think?  Are these the same scientists who gave us the atomic bomb, Agent Orange, Keynesian economics, Maslowe’s triangle, the ID, Malthusian pessimism, the “global warming” hoax, 200 patented ways to contracept, thalidomide babies, Love Canal, “end of life choice,” scientific atheism as religion, wholesale blindness and denial of anything prior to Newton’s “discovery” of gravity?

ON RELIGIOUS SOUNDING LANGUAGE:
“I make no claims about our “fallen nature”. It sounds like a religious phrase to me designed to increase the dependency of the faithful on religion.”
But isn’t this what we’ve been talking about in terms of the depradations of 20th Century atheism?  “Fallen nature” is not such a religiously loaded term that it can’t be instantly recognized in some of the descriptions which have preceded in this string.  Your persistent determination to reject cause and effect - atheism (cause) -> mass murder and destruction (effect) tells me you’re not really about science (knowledge, reason) at all.  Your interesed only in a partisan or political way.  And that way, my friend, is no way.

ON USELESS RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS:
“Crucifixion was a form of societal punishment. Societal punishment is used by society to enforce its moral code and enforce the power of the state.”
You must acknowledge the religious significance of this act, if only in in a detached sociological way, if you’re not just a vacuous shill.

Throughout this string, I’ve been struck by your dogged determination to misunderstand or ignore any comment or assertion that offers a different slant from your own pretty obtuse one.  I’m not going to accuse you personally, I hope you know that, but your oft-stated views are pretty shallow, vacuous and dim.  They afford very little in the way of enlightenment, and nothing in the way of alternatives to make things better.

If this is the consensus of a majority of scientists, it’s no wonder they’re picking on religion in their books.  Otherwise nobody would read them.  Sincerely, who’s subscribing to “Science” (and actually reading it).  The list would probably constitute a “Who’s Who” of nerdish individuals.

Throughout our exchanges, I’d hoped to see some taking of responsibility in you.  You really haven’t done that.  Let me know when your handler shows up.

@Matt B:

Your reliance on “an overwhelming consensus of scientists” to reach this determination is a little self-serving, don’t you think?  Are these the same scientists who gave us the atomic bomb, Agent Orange, Keynesian economics, Maslowe’s triangle, the ID, Malthusian pessimism, the “global warming” hoax, 200 patented ways to contracept, thalidomide babies, Love Canal, “end of life choice,” scientific atheism as religion, wholesale blindness and denial of anything prior to Newton’s “discovery” of gravity?

I make no apology for regarding science as my principle source of knowledge about reality. What other people do with that knowledge is not the fault of scientists. Their job starts and ends with the discovery and publicising of knowledge and propounding the importance of continuing the search. Still I suppose suppressing knowledge because you don’t like it is a very old habit of Catholics.

But isn’t this what we’ve been talking about in terms of the depradations of 20th Century atheism?  “Fallen nature” is not such a religiously loaded term that it can’t be instantly recognized in some of the descriptions which have preceded in this string.  Your persistent determination to reject cause and effect - atheism (cause) -> mass murder and destruction (effect) tells me you’re not really about science (knowledge, reason) at all.  Your interesed only in a partisan or political way.  And that way, my friend, is no way.

I wasn’t aware that I had been asked to comment on twentieth century genocide. I myself feel no desire to go out and murder people and I don’t see how atheism could possibly motivate anyone else to do so either. Exactly how do you get from not believing in gods to genocide?

You must acknowledge the religious significance of this act, if only in in a detached sociological way, if you’re not just a vacuous shill.

Well, I’ve never been religious so I’m not much up on religious significance. I guess I must be a vacuous shill.

Throughout this string, I’ve been struck by your dogged determination to misunderstand or ignore any comment or assertion that offers a different slant from your own pretty obtuse one.  I’m not going to accuse you personally, I hope you know that, but your oft-stated views are pretty shallow, vacuous and dim.  They afford very little in the way of enlightenment, and nothing in the way of alternatives to make things better.

Yes, I guess what your really saying here is that you can’t refute my arguments so you’ve decided to go for the dismissive approach. From my point of view, while I recognize that I’m not the world’s best communicator, I have been surprised at the frequency with which I have been misunderstood. Misunderstandings on my part are due to stupidity, (or at least unfamiliarity the thinking patterns of posters here), not guile. The claim that I have ignored some comments has more merit. At least some of my motives for doing so were reasonable. After all, my original purpose in posting here was to refute Mark Shea’s silly article maligning atheistic thinking on morality by presenting a consistent view of the nature of morality and its origins from one atheist. I can understand that you find this view alien but I have answered all questions specifically related to the view and its consequences. I don’t believe any poster has managed to find a chink in my logic or an error of fact.

If this is the consensus of a majority of scientists, it’s no wonder they’re picking on religion in their books.  Otherwise nobody would read them.  Sincerely, who’s subscribing to “Science” (and actually reading it).  The list would probably constitute a “Who’s Who” of nerdish individuals.

I speak only for myself. While there are other evolutionary explanations for morality out there, this particular explanation is only influenced by them.

Throughout our exchanges, I’d hoped to see some taking of responsibility in you.  You really haven’t done that.  Let me know when your handler shows up.

I take responsibility only for myself and my family.

Gordon,

blockquote>It may be that society would be better off without the economically useless. But the steps taken to murder such people would have repercussions much worse than the burden society currently carries on their behalf.</blockquote>

And <i>that is all we have been trying to get at.  The other faiths that you name also recognize Universal Law.  They may not view “God” in the same way, but they certainly recognized “His” laws.  His objective laws.

I’m not arguing for the reality of God here.  I am simply showing that there IS an Objective Moral Code that is Subjectively interpreted, and always has been.  Some societies ignore it (they usually fail, miserably, taking much of the society with them), some get a lot of it (they tend to succeed) and one gets most of it (on a doctrinal level, not by coincidence) and that one has been around unchanged and doing wonderfully (again, warts and all) as a social system for 2 thousand years, with no sign of weakening.  The idea that Religion is the cause of all our woes has successfully been shown to be untrue, by YOU.  lol.

BTW, the Catholic Moral Code has not really evolved all that much.  There are some simple laws and when applied to complicated situations correctly, they are fail proof.  A perfect example of this is your statement:  But the steps taken to murder such people

We already murder such people, based on the value we give them, to the tune of a million and a half a year.  Either murder is wrong, inherently, objectively, or it isn’t.  If it isn’t, then it wouldn’t matter if we kill the “useless eaters”.  If it is, then abortion is wrong.

Kreef puts it this way, explaining the logical hoops people jump through to rationalize abortion.  Murder is the taking of an innocent life.  Murder is wrong.  Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  Abortion is murder.  (Now, a this point, any sane person would conclude that abortion is wrong, but not those who desperately need to justify it) Therefore, murder must not be wrong.

So you tell me, how is placing a value on our homeless friend and putting him down because he offers nothing any different from placing a value on an unborn child and putting him down for the same reasons?

Gordon,

Still I suppose suppressing knowledge because you don’t like it is a very old habit of Catholics.

Cheap shot, and totally untrue.

Gordon,

From my point of view, while I recognize that I’m not the world’s best communicator, I have been surprised at the frequency with which I have been misunderstood. Misunderstandings on my part are due to stupidity, (or at least unfamiliarity the thinking patterns of posters here), not guile.

I believe you and I appreciate your efforts.  Misunderstandings on both sides are to be expected for exactly the reasons you state.  We simply don’t “think” like each other.  And it is clear, to me at least, that guile has never entered the picture.

@Colin Gormley:

There is no reason to assume that the traits exibited by dogs in the study are an analog to human moral reasoning.  This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Yes, but we both know I could have shown additional studies including ones concerned with children’s instincts and that you could look such studies up for yourself.

This does not answer my objection.  If natural selection (i.e. survival) is the basis then slavery is the perfect example of a stronger society subjugating a weaker one.  Natural selection at its finest.

I have given an explanation for slavery in another post. I can’t be expected to keep repeating myself. I will say that slavery is a prime example of the main limitation of social emotions and instincts.

No but you do claim “progress” in a general sense.  I have thrown out several examples that the last century or so illustrating warfare and societal ills have increased, not decreased.  Abortion, contraception and a variety of other popular views actually lead toward extinction, not survival.  There is no emperical evidence that we are progressing in a survival of the species sense.  If anything societies that embrace this notion are on the verge of sterilizing themselves out of existence.

You will struggle to produce an example of me actually using the word progress except to quote what another poster said.

There are many ways to survive that have nothing to do with being “good” in a society.  I can just as easily benefit myself at the expense of society.  And if I accumulate the power to get away with it why not?

Yes, but the point is that co-operation among social animals is demonstrably a huge survival plus. If we took you naked and thrust you back 250,000 years to a time before men existed, how long do you think you’d last?

Why would we assume that?  Since slavery went the way of the dodo in the ancient world, only to be resurrected during the colonial era, to going out to coming back in again.  If anything we are in a cycle, not progression.

Well I assume that slavery has had its day because there is now no government anywhere in the world that condones it. But of course, I’m not a prophet. I could be wrong.

There is simply too much counter-data to assume that morality is ultimately about survival.  Too many universal traits exist in a varity of cross-societal samples can only lead to the conclusion that there is something intrinsic to morality.  Something universal.  Something constant.

Well if you think you can show data which contradicts this idea, do so.

I just read this on another post and it is brilliant…and apropos.

Take the four fields of religion, science, technology and magic (the alchemy and divining variety, not the white tigers and scantily clad assistants variety).  Split them into two groups of two similar fields.

Most people today group science and technology together, and religion and magic together.  The former involve the natural world, the latter the supernatural, so this is understandable.

But Lewis pointed out a more profound split: grouping religion and science together, and magic and technology together.  The former are both ways of conforming one’s mind to reality (either natural or supernatural).  The latter are both ways of, given one’s own desires, conforming reality to satiate those desires.  Conforming reality to one’s mind.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/faith-and-wonder/#ixzz1YhzNXAtT

Gordon, thank you for patiently answering all my posts, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner (to me).  Your ability to speak point by point to my incoherent ramblings demonstrate that you are indeed a kind and gentle person.  Although we disagree, I have full confidence in God that he will turn those admirable virtues to your soul’s good use.  I take solace in the fact that we both consider Mark Shea “silly.”  From there, who knows?
Sincerely, Matt

Mr.  Hide

I think the problems separating us would take far longer than I am equipped to discuss further.  I want to thank you for your time and amicable attitude.  I wish you blessings from Our heavenly Father though Jesus Christ.  God bless you sir.

I’m going to talk a little more widely about natural selection and “survival of the fittest”. The first thing I want to say is that people at the site where I usually post would be appalled that I am holding forth on this subject as I have never attended a biology course. But I feel forced to try and address an even greater level of ignorance about what is an important aspect of this subject for an evolutionary view of the genesis and nature of morality.
It is true that the evolutionary process is red in tooth and claw and completely pitiless in operation. People have abandoned the belief in a benevolent god when they have realised something of the scale of suffering that has had to exist in the world to bring evolutionary development to its current level.
But there is another side to the process of natural selection. The phrase “survival of the fittest” is catchy but unfortunate. A more accurate view is that the genes which tend to survive are those which endow organisms with the traits most suited to survival within their current environment.
For social organisms the whole ball game changes. For a social organism a large part of their environment is the social milieu in which they must conduct their existence. Whether the organism survives to reproduce will depend in large measure on the degree to which they are fit for that environment. A big part of being fit for that environment is being a suitable candidate for co-operation with others. As an example, if you are known not to play fair you will be excluded from reciprocal arrangements. When food is in short supply others will not share with you. They will not join hunting groups of which you are a member. If you resort to physical aggression to fulfil your needs, others will retreat from you, ostracise you, or appeal to those who are stronger but more co-operative than you.
The result of all this is that traits develop which make social animal good co-operators. Being a good co-operator is not just good for the individual it’s also good for the group in general. The more the group co-operates the more the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts.
The sort of traits that lead to survival of the genes among social animals are:

Empathy
Fairness
Delayed personal gratification
Reciprocity
Altruism
Reciprocal altruism
Reputation building
Loyalty
Acquiescence to peer pressure
Acquiescence to authority
Conformity
Guilt
Humility

In particular you will note from this list that you get no brownie points for advocating ways of making the group stronger, especially if that involves heaving the weaker members over the side.
You would instead be seen as divisive and an unsuitable person to rely on for reciprocity. Clearly groups are not without internal problems but the individual or faction that comes out on top is not necessarily the strongest but rather the one that has gathered the most loyal supporters.

Every one of the terms I have used above can be Googled. If you look into this yourself you will find other ways that natural selection has improved social behaviour rather than promote the violent fight for survival that its detractors like to concentrate on.

There is one big limitation on all the fine feelings nurtured by natural selection. These feelings only operate between members of the same group. It would never do if a wolf felt empathy towards his prey. In fact, wolves give no quarter to members of other packs trespassing on their territory.
All the barbarity you see in history is visited on people of a different group or people who have had their group status withdrawn.
As I think I’ve already said somewhere, it’s instructive how German Jews were first demonised, characterised as subhuman and had their citizenship withdrawn thus removing them from the “in group” before the “final solution” was implemented.

Gordon, you’ve refined your mathematical model to incorporate the more sophisticated findings of the behavioral sciences.  But it still relies on an objectification of moral agents.  This might be appropriate if you’re studying wolves, but can we take the same approach towards men and women?  Doesn’t that put us in an olympian stance as we relate towards our own kind?  And isn’t your attitude of scrutiny towards human beings negating their infinite value?  This is an occupational hazard for physicians especially, but the best of them recognize and honor the ultimate worth of their patients.

Let’s say certain individuals lacked the traits you describe as “leading to the survival of their genes.”  In your calculus they lack “the right stuff.”  But does this make them any less deserving of cherishing?  And what about the absurdity of hope?  Even Hawking, a debilitated man, persevered to great things.  Since he is your hero, perhaps you should recognize the implications of his life - his ontology.

God is known as the “God of gods,” which makes him the loftiest olympian.  But his being is characterized by intimacy and love.  He is very high, but he stoops to conquer.  This is the enormous secret of Jesus, who though God - became a man.  He has a lot to teach us, about our relations with other creatures, about ourselves.  I would suggest to you that this heuristic holds far more potential for valid truth, and for constructive dynamic, than any scientific paradigm.  After all, your science only observes the apparent reality of things, while faith pierces to the underlying truth of “things seen and unseen.”  +JMJ

@mk:

Like what?  If those that are better able/genetically equipped to propagate the world are also the ones who decide who lives and who goes, then why would that not be a good thing from a Natural Selection point of view?

Despite my own ignorance of the subject I have produced a post on Friday, Sep 23, 2011 12:02 PM (EDT) which explains how natural selection is now seen as figuring so prominently in the moral landscape. I think it answers your question.

The other faiths that you name also recognize Universal Law.  They may not view “God” in the same way, but they certainly recognized “His” laws.  His objective laws.

I’m afraid I can’t come with you on this. While I can accept that there are bound to be similarities between the moral codes of conduct of different societies and different religions because we are all human beings with the same social instincts and emotions and different societies face some similar challenges, I cannot see particular tenets as objective or universal. In particular, I think it’s difficult to map putative objective tenets on to social instincts and emotions that, in the natural world, only pertain within the “in group” of the particular social organism.

I’m not arguing for the reality of God here.  I am simply showing that there IS an Objective Moral Code that is Subjectively interpreted, and always has been.  Some societies ignore it (they usually fail, miserably, taking much of the society with them), some get a lot of it (they tend to succeed) and one gets most of it (on a doctrinal level, not by coincidence) and that one has been around unchanged and doing wonderfully (again, warts and all) as a social system for 2 thousand years, with no sign of weakening.  The idea that Religion is the cause of all our woes has successfully been shown to be untrue, by YOU.  lol.

I don’t think you have demonstrated any great degree of objectivity in morality. More to the point, with my ideas about morality the subjectivity/objectivity debate is not very relevant. If you feel that any thing I have said reinforces your view about the necessity of objectivity in morality, more power to you.
I am glad that you feel your religion is doing wonderfully but you are presumably aware that there are opinions contrary to this. I am surprised that the decline of religion in the first world is not seen as a portent of things to come if the developing world “catches up”.
I agree that the idea that religion is the source of all woes is foolish. From my point of view religion is a product of culture. Without it humans would still have the natural tendency to assign conscious agency to unexplained events. People would still need the solace and comfort that they derive from religion. They would search for other ways of relieving the anxieties of the human condition.

BTW, the Catholic Moral Code has not really evolved all that much.  There are some simple laws and when applied to complicated situations correctly, they are fail proof.  A perfect example of this is your statement:  But the steps taken to murder such people…
We already murder such people, based on the value we give them, to the tune of a million and a half a year.  Either murder is wrong, inherently, objectively, or it isn’t.  If it isn’t, then it wouldn’t matter if we kill the “useless eaters”.  If it is, then abortion is wrong.
Kreef puts it this way, explaining the logical hoops people jump through to rationalize abortion.  Murder is the taking of an innocent life.  Murder is wrong.  Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  Abortion is murder.  (Now, a this point, any sane person would conclude that abortion is wrong, but not those who desperately need to justify it) Therefore, murder must not be wrong.
So you tell me, how is placing a value on our homeless friend and putting him down because he offers nothing any different from placing a value on an unborn child and putting him down for the same reasons?

Murder is a crime and defined as such. That makes it wrong in all the moral codes I know about. However, what constitutes murder depends upon definitions within particular jurisdictions. This is the kind of problem you run into with claims that particular moral tenets are objective, absolute or universal. They clearly aren’t. You are left claiming that they ought to be. But as we know, much more intelligent and educated men than us have signally failed to resolve the “is/ought” question.
The conviction that the Catholic moral code has not evolved much is also difficult to square with history I think. You will be reduced to claiming that historical Catholics were ignorant of the true code or didn’t have the means or the moral fibre to implement it.
In relation to the position of the homeless man vis-à-vis the unborn child, the simple difference is that in most jurisdictions the homeless man is in the “in group”, the unborn child less so. There are several reasons why the unborn child is not included in the in group to the same extent:
It cannot show reciprocity
It does not suffer in its early stages
It’s out of sight
It’s not a conscious agent
It doesn’t represent a significant investment for society.

In addition, in many societies the idea of forcing women to bear children against their will and of bringing unwanted children into the world, with the resulting increases in human misery, are thought to be much greater evils. And I have to say I agree with them.

@mk:
Gordon,
Still I suppose suppressing knowledge because you don’t like it is a very old habit of Catholics.

Cheap shot, and totally untrue.

Yes, It was not very bright of me to provoke response on something I know little about.

@mk:

Take the four fields of religion, science, technology and magic
(the alchemy and divining variety, not the white tigers and scantily clad
assistants variety). Split them into two groups of two similar fields.

Most people today group science and technology together, and religion and
magic together. The former involve the natural world, the latter the
supernatural, so this is understandable.

But Lewis pointed out a more profound split: grouping religion and science
together, and magic and technology together. The former are both ways of
conforming one’s mind to reality (either natural or supernatural). The
latter are both ways of, given one’s own desires, conforming reality to
satiate those desires. Conforming reality to one’s mind.

Well, this doesn’t sit well with a materialist. Also I think you’ll have a job getting magic to conform anything to anything.

Gordon,

Of course you’ll have a hard time getting magic to conform to anything.  All the quote is trying to do is show that we now use technology the way we used to use magic.  We don’t use Christianity that way.  Technology is closer to magic than religion is.  Because Magic and Tech are ways of making the world do what we want.  Magic manipulates the physical world to suit our desires.  So does technology.  We are not saying that magic and technology are alike in that neither is effective.  Magic is not, technology is.  We are only saying that one manipulates the world around us to fill our needs, and the others (science/religion) force us to change to conform to reality.  But Science and Religion start from a different place.  They start with the belief that Science and Religion are expressions of objective Truth.  WE must conform to them.  We do not try to get them to conform to us.  They are REALITY. 

This is why we must conform to Moral Truths and not make Moral Truths conform to us.  That would be like having a scientific hypothesis and “forcing” scientific data to back it up.  Bass ackwards.  Same with God. 

But materialist, by ignoring the metaphysical world, do just that.  They refuse to see what “IS”, instead only seeing what fits their preconceived world view.  If we did science that way we’d still be dying of small pox and walking everywhere.

It’s like this…we cannot change the law of gravity.  That would be insanity.  It is what it is.  So we work with it, and manipulate things so that they can defy gravity…not change it, defy it.  Get around it.  That would be technology.

Likewise, we cannot change the Moral Laws.  They are what they are.  But we, in our arrogance, DEFY those Moral Laws.  We get around them, by rationalizing.  Like abortion.  We tell ourselves it’s in the interest of women’s privacy that makes it okay to kill unborn children.  We defy gravity, and we fly.  We defy the Moral Law of thou shall not murder and we end up with billions of dead babies.  Moral gravity…pun intended.  Now technology itself is morally neutral.  BUT, if we use the technology to attain immoral things, it becomes an agent of immorality.  Like cloning, or fetal stem cells…

“The sort of traits that lead to survival of the genes among social animals are:

Empathy
Fairness . . . “

Then is our society doomed to extinction? Just a quick look around shows that cruelty, injustice, disloyalty, selfishness, etc. are amply rewarded in our society, while humility, empathy, conformity are mercilessly ridiculed. In fact, people tell me this has been going on for quite a while now.

Also, I fail to see how your claim that “the genes which tend to survive are those which endow organisms with the traits most suited to survival within their current environment” necessarily argues against a natural law basis for morality. In other words, the fact that what humans have long considered “right” corresponds to what will best perpetuate their species does not mean that what they consider right is nothing more than this. One can argue that the US Constitution is what in fact will best perpetuate the USA, but it does not follow from this that the US Constitution is nothing more than a pragmatic arrangement to perpetuate the nation with no transcendent principles, still less the necessary product of political or social evolution.

Murder is a crime and defined as such. That makes it wrong in all the moral codes I know about.

Damn Kant and his Copernicus Revolution!  ;)  You draw the conclusion that because it is law, people have accepted it as wrong.  I am saying it is wrong, and the law reflects that.  The Moral Law came first.  It is not wrong because we say it is wrong.  We say it is wrong because it IS wrong.

Gordon,

However, what constitutes murder depends upon definitions within particular jurisdictions. This is the kind of problem you run into with claims that particular moral tenets are objective, absolute or universal.

The nuances may not be as clear, and different cultures may accept certain types of killing as justified, but those would be social standards, not universal law.

Here are the 7 commandments that do not apply to God and our relationship with Him (the first three do that)...

#  Honor your father and your mother.
# You shall not kill.
# You shall not commit adultery.
# You shall not steal.
# You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
# You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
# You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Which of those would you argue are not universally accepted?

Here are the five precepts of Taoism.

  * The first precept: No Murdering;
  * The second precept: No Stealing;
  * The third precept: No Sexual Misconduct;
  * The fourth precept: No False Speech;
  * The fifth precept: No Taking of Intoxicants.

Ten commitments of Hinduism:

1. Ahimsa - do no harm
2. Satya - do not lie
3. Asteya - do not steal
4. Brahmacharya - do not overindulge
5. Aparigraha - do not be greedy
6. Saucha - be clean
7. Santosha - be content
8. Tapas - be self-disciplined
9. Svadhyaya - study
10. Ishvara Pranidhana - surrender to God

Judaism and Islam follow the 10 commandments.
Wicca lives by the three fold law…do what ye will, harm ye none.

The greatest commandment is Do unto others as you would have them to unto you…

Every society in the world has followed these Universal Laws since the beginning of recorded history.  Some societies have not followed them all, but NO society has ever followed none of them.  Universal Law.  Across the board.  All men, all times, all places.

In response to: @Matt B on Saturday, Sep 24, 2011 12:43 AM (EDT):

All hypotheses relating to the behaviour of humans as a group is bound to depersonalise them to a degree. That includes ideas that they should be ruled by universal laws. I would say that as long as we keep in mind that people are individuals, every one different, we will not make the mistake of assuming individual people will or even should conform to the objectified average.
I would say that if we can follow the evidence in our speculations our stance has the possibility of being objective rather than Olympian.
For me the worth of the individual depends on the fact that I am an individual and that I cannot expect my worth to be recognized by others unless I first recognize theirs.

Not only do certain individuals “lack the right stuff” but pretty well all of us lack the right stuff one way or another. That’s the nature of genetic variation and subsequent cultural conditioning. The society that can best accommodate such variation and turn it to co-operative ends is well on the way to success.
As for hope, it is not irrational to hope and strive for deliverance against impossible odds when the only alternative is death. It can become absurd when it is invested with special merit and people hope for the impossible when practical alternatives to addressing their problems still exist. As for Hawking being my hero, even at the time of my childhood when role models are important I was not prone to belief in heroes.
Your claim that faith pierces to underlying truth is only a claim which cannot be substantiated.

@Sam Schmitt:

Then is our society doomed to extinction? Just a quick look around shows that cruelty, injustice, disloyalty, selfishness, etc. are amply rewarded in our society, while humility, empathy, conformity are mercilessly ridiculed. In fact, people tell me this has been going on for quite a while now.

If your claim was true then society would already have collapsed. I believe the very existence of society depends upon the dominance of social traits, cultural socialisation and recognition by the majority of the value of society and the advantage of following a moral path.

@mk:

Of course you’ll have a hard time getting magic to conform to anything.  All the quote is trying to do is show that we now use technology the way we used to use magic

I still think you’ll have a hard time showing that magic was even thought of as even an ineffectual way of getting reality to conform to our needs. What I will do is concede that within fictional literature magic is often used in that manner.

But Science and Religion start from a different place.  They start with the belief that Science and Religion are expressions of objective Truth.  WE must conform to them.  We do not try to get them to conform to us.  They are REALITY.

This is why we must conform to Moral Truths and not make Moral Truths conform to us.  That would be like having a scientific hypothesis and “forcing” scientific data to back it up.  Bass ackwards.  Same with God.

I’m afraid that I think the idea of objective “moral truths” is exactly the process of trying to get humankind to conform to a hypothetical idea which cannot be substantiated by evidence. If you could produce evidence for objective moral truth of the same calibre as that for the force gravity it might be a different matter.

@mk:

Damn Kant and his Copernicus Revolution!  ;)  You draw the conclusion that because it is law, people have accepted it as wrong.  I am saying it is wrong, and the law reflects that.  The Moral Law came first.  It is not wrong because we say it is wrong.  We say it is wrong because it IS wrong.

That’s exactly right. In my book “wrong” means lack of conformity to the moral system in play. Until you can demonstrate the existence of objective moral law which stands independent of human society I go with my version of reality because it conforms better to the observed evidence.

Response to: @mk on Saturday, Sep 24, 2011 9:43 PM (EDT):

The fact that you have been able to show the widespread adherence to some moral tenets shows no more than I have already admitted. That is that such similarities are to be expected because we are all the same species and different societies face similar challenges. The idea that any minority should have the right to impose their version of even one of these laws on society in general is untenable.

How do you justify imposing your idea of what constitutes murder when your argument that murder is a moral law uses examples from societies, all of which, have different ideas of which killings are murders?

Gordon,

<blockquote>How do you justify imposing your idea of what constitutes murder when your argument that murder is a moral law uses examples from societies, all of which, have different ideas of which killings are murders?<.blockquote>

Because as I have said numerous times, objective law does not prohibit subjective interpretation.

I have never claimed that we always get it right.  As for a minority having the right to impose their version of even one of these laws….
Hello.  Right now the majority of Americans think abortion should not be legal for any reason during the full 9 months of pregnancy.  But there it is.  Right now, 4% of the population is homosexual, yet they are trying to make the other 96% accept a new definition of marriage.  It took a civil war to force the bottom half of our country to end slavery.  And how many laws did the minority have to put in place to end segregation? 

So lets do a check list.  Was Hitler objectively wrong, or was he only wrong in some peoples eyes…wrong from the Jews standpoint, right from the Germans?  Is murder objectively wrong?  Is rape objectively wrong?  Is stealing objectively wrong? Or are all of these things neither right or wrong, but only acceptable or not acceptable given a particular culture or time?

You asked for some sort of evidence that there IS an Objective Moral Law and I gave you the tenets of the top major religions.  ALL of them have the same moral laws.  All societies have had these same laws.  When a society does not adhere to them, then they get noticed.  Why?  Because they are defying what most men recognize as good and right.  Most men do not break the law of gravity by jumping out a window.  It is only when they do that they get noticed.  We don’t see headlines in the Newspapers about the millions of people who did NOT jump out of a window on any given day.  We don’t read in history books about the cultures that followed the Moral Laws.  We only read about the ones that broke it.  Everyone knows Hitlers name, not because he OBEYED Moral Law, but because he BROKE it.  Few people know any of the good things that Hitler did, because it is expected that men do not kill each other, rape each other, experiment on each other.  ALL men know about the horrors of Hitler, because NO ONE expects another human being to gas 6 million people.  It is the Hannibal Lectors, Charles Mansons, John Wayne Gacy’s, Joseph Stalins…that get written about. 

What peaks our interest is men and women who either break the moral code, or those who heroically keep it.  But that presupposes that we know what that Moral Law is.

Gordon,

I still think you’ll have a hard time showing that magic was even thought of as even an ineffectual way of getting reality to conform to our needs. What I will do is concede that within fictional literature magic is often used in that manner.

Seriously?  You can’t think of any examples of magical practices in past or present cultures? Astrology, I Ching, Palm Reading, Tarot Cards, Alchemy (Isaac Newton)...How many television shows are on today about people speaking with dead loved ones?  Every newspaper in the world has an astrology section.  Kabbalism?  Voodoo?  Shamanism?  Wicca?  Good Lord man, it’s everywhere!

@mk:

Because as I have said numerous times, objective law does not prohibit subjective interpretation.

Perhaps I should have put it another way. How do you justify imposing your subjective interpretation of what constitutes murder on everybody else?

Right now the majority of Americans think abortion should not be legal for any reason during the full 9 months of pregnancy.  But there it is.

One of the most important reasons that democracies have constitutions is to prevent majorities from oppressing minorities. In this case it protects the freedom of the minority who want abortions from the tyranny of the majority who don’t.

Right now, 4% of the population is homosexual, yet they are trying to make the other 96% accept a new definition of marriage.

That is a subjective interpretation of what’s going on. Here’s another one: What they want is equal rights with married people for their long term relationships. I don’t suppose they care what definition of marriage you use personally. They’re interested in what definition the state uses in matters of law under which they believe they should have equality.

It took a civil war to force the bottom half of our country to end slavery.  And how many laws did the minority have to put in place to end segregation?

 
Again this was a matter of the oppression of a minority by the majority.
I have already given my view on why some moral tenets are common. You’ve said nothing new in the rest of your post that you haven’t covered before.

@mk:

Seriously?  You can’t think of any examples of magical practices in past or present cultures? Astrology, I Ching, Palm Reading, Tarot Cards, Alchemy (Isaac Newton)...How many television shows are on today about people speaking with dead loved ones?  Every newspaper in the world has an astrology section.  Kabbalism?  Voodoo?  Shamanism?  Wicca?  Good Lord man, it’s everywhere!

Well of course,  Kabbalah,  Voodoo,  Shamanism and Wicca all think of themselves as religions or sects so they don’t count as magic, (except to atheists who think nearly all religions are magic, and most Abrahamic theists who are exclusivist and seem to think all other religions are suspect).
However, you may be right. I think of magic as self delusion. Those who believe already think that reality conforms to their delusions so they’re not trying to get it to conform. It’s technology that gets it to conform.

Gordon,

Perhaps I should have put it another way. How do you justify imposing your subjective interpretation of what constitutes murder on everybody else?

First, I must ask you the same thing.  You have stated often that you don’t accept the idea of an Objective Moral Law.  That you think the laws of a society dictate what is right and wrong.  Then you have said that you don’t accept my idea because there is no evidence for it.  But where is the evidence for yours?  On whose authority do you base a societies subjective interpretations of right and wrong.

Now to answer your question.  If we accept that murder is specific to taking the life of someone who does not deserve it…an innocent life…(I realize that in our society murder is a legal term, but it has not always been so, and certainly not when the ten commandments were written), then we must ask ourselves each and every time we move to kill someone, whether or not they are “guilty” or “innocent”.  Personally, and this is the Catholic Churches view, there are very few reasons to kill anyone, guilty or not, in today’s society.  Certainly it must be a choice of last resort.  But here we are speaking of plain murder.  First, is the person innocent?  Guilty of no crime and a danger to no one.  If the answer is yes, then murder would be wrong, each and every time.  Second, if the person is not innocent, are they a threat to others.  If the answer is no, then killing them would also be wrong.  Third, if the person is a threat to others, is the threat imminent and is there any other recourse you could take.  If there is, then killing them would be wrong.  Lastly, if killing them is the only course of action that would save other innocent lives, then you choose the course of action that would produce the greater good.  This is the basis of justified war, for instance. 

That would be a reasoned approach to the question of when is it permitted to end someones life.

In the case of abortion, it is a little different in that first we must determine if the unborn child is indeed a person.  Of course, the answer is yes.  It is alive, it is growing, and it is most definitely human.  It is wrong to place value on human life based on the stage of life that the person is in.  And that is all the term fetus denotes.  Fetus isn’t even to human beings.  It is simply a term that defines the stage of life that a particular species is in.  If, as we both know, the unborn child is indeed human, and alive, and given that it is obviously innocent of any wrong doing, then it is wrong, objectively wrong to take it’s life.

Now granted murder is a clearer example of extreme right and wrong but it is a beginning.  We can see that there is a reasoning process that goes into determining the finer points of a moral dilemma. 

It does get trickier with things like gay marriage, but that too can be reasoned out.  The thing is, we might not all agree.  But that just means that we, not the law, are at fault.  Some one is wrong, and someone is right.  Or perhaps everyone is wrong.  But there IS an answer, even if it is not clear.  Often, the answer isn’t all that difficult.  The difficulty comes in when the answer goes against a personal desire.  Which do you give in to?  I cannot make you choose the morally correct thing.  I cannot even “make” you see it.  But that does not change whether there IS a morally correct thing.

Again this was a matter of the oppression of a minority by the majority.
I have already given my view on why some moral tenets are common. You’ve said nothing new in the rest of your post that you haven’t covered before.

And now it is flipped, and the majority believe slavery is wrong.  But it was always wrong, majority or minority.  Don’t you see that?  It was wrong went most people thought it was right.  It is wrong now that most people think it is wrong.  What happened is that people conformed to reality.  They changed their way of thinking to conform to what is objectively true…that is that slavery is wrong. 

You keep saying that you don’t believe in objective moral law, and then point out that slavery is wrong.  Well, is it?  According to your reasoning (that societies decide what is right and wrong), it was right when the law said it was right.  Was it?  Or was it wrong in spite of what the law said?  If so, why?  Why was it wrong, even tho the law said it was right?

I know you don’t “think” that you believe in Objective Moral Law, but you keep arguing, without realizing, that it exists.  When you say that we are genetically programmed to believe that fairness and justice are the right thing to do, you are saying that fairness and justice are things outside of ourselves.  Don’t you see that?  We can choose not to be fair, or not to be just, but we can’t choose not to know that fair is right and just is right.  Those who don’t play fair are ostracized.  Not because society told them so.  But because they instinctively KNOW it.  A four year old will stomp his foot and cry foul when he sees an injustice.  So I say Objective law comes from God, and you say it is in our genes.  Personally, I think we are saying almost the same thing.  Morality is not something we invented, but rather something that is innate, intrinsic, to every man.

@mk:

First, I must ask you the same thing.  You have stated often that you don’t accept the idea of an Objective Moral Law.  That you think the laws of a society dictate what is right and wrong.  Then you have said that you don’t accept my idea because there is no evidence for it.  But where is the evidence for yours?  On whose authority do you base a societies subjective interpretations of right and wrong.

More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.

The fact that you believe an early stage unborn child merits society’s protection presumably on the same basis as a full adult moral agent is noted. I have already listed some of the reasons why societies that don’t see it like that disagree and their reasonable desire to extend control to women of their own bodies and their desire not to be responsible for the birth of unwanted children.

I note that you characterize abortion as motivated by personal desire rather than a decision made like other moral decisions, but of course we can all do that. I hereby characterize the Catholic Church’s desire to outlaw abortion as their desire to retain control of women’s bodies and otherwise exercise power in society. I can also impute the same desire to their supporters. This misuse of the word “desire” is possible because we all do what we desire all the time otherwise we wouldn’t do it. It’s just that our desire is to comply with what is morally acceptable whether it’s in favour of something you don’t approve of or not.

Ahhh, but Gordon,

It isn’t about the womens body.  That is the crux of the matter.  You just said yourself that the child is unwanted.  That is your rationalization.  Never even tried to say that it “isn’t” a child.  That objective fact stands.  It is a child.  It is unwanted.  It is a teenager.  It is unwanted.  It is an elderly person.  It is unwanted. 

It’s just that our desire is to comply with what is morally acceptable whether it’s in favour of something you don’t approve of or not.

There you go making my argument again.  I may WANT to not raise a child, give birth, carry him for nine months, but I don’t do that because it would be immoral.  I have clearly given ample reason why it would be immoral to take the life an innocent human being, while you have done nothing except tell me that unwanted persons that place a burden on others are not afforded the same rights as those who are wanted.  I have shown what we “ought” to do, and you have shown what we “want” to do. 

I am not forcing MY morals on society.  I am ENFORCING objective morality.

You never addressed my questions on slavery/Hitler…

You say:

More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.

and I ask…

You keep saying that you don’t believe in objective moral law, and then point out that slavery is wrong.  Well, is it?  According to your reasoning (that societies decide what is right and wrong), it was right when the law said it was right.  Was it?  Or was it wrong in spite of what the law said?  If so, why?  Why was it wrong, even tho the law said it was right?

You’ve backed yourself into a corner here.  Either you must admit that if a society says that slavery is right, then you also think it is right, or you must admit that morality cannot be dictated by societies and regardless of the law, slavery is wrong.  I think anyone reading our conversation can see the inconsistencies in your argument.  Why can’t you?  (I’m not being snarky…I really don’t get it.  You seem intelligent, yet miss your own lack of logic.)

@mk on Sunday:

And now it is flipped, and the majority believe slavery is wrong.  But it was always wrong, majority or minority.  Don’t you see that?  It was wrong went most people thought it was right.  It is wrong now that most people think it is wrong.  What happened is that people conformed to reality.  They changed their way of thinking to conform to what is objectively true…that is that slavery is wrong.

You can have no idea how much this sounds like dysfunctional Orwellian doublethink to me. You have a fixed hypothesis that objective morality has always existed. You find that for most of recorded human history man has not conformed to this objective morality on a large scale because of the near universality of slavery. Do you revise your hypothesis because you have found that it doesn’t fit the facts? No, you declare man to have been wrong for most of recorded history because he doesn’t conform to your view.

You keep saying that you don’t believe in objective moral law, and then point out that slavery is wrong.

You will struggle to show a post where I have said this or anything like it.

Well, is it?  According to your reasoning (that societies decide what is right and wrong), it was right when the law said it was right.  Was it?  Or was it wrong in spite of what the law said?  If so, why?  Why was it wrong, even tho the law said it was right?

Slavery is indeed wrong in my moral code but it was not wrong in moral code of slave owners. Slave owners felt no cognitive dysfunction by keeping slaves because slaves were not part of their “in group”. So the innate feelings and instincts that even slave owners had did not come into play. This is a prime example of why natural instincts and emotions are such a bad fit to your objective moral laws.

I know you don’t “think” that you believe in Objective Moral Law, but you keep arguing, without realizing, that it exists. When you say that we are genetically programmed to believe that fairness and justice are the right thing to do, you are saying that fairness and justice are things outside of ourselves.  Don’t you see that?  We can choose not to be fair, or not to be just, but we can’t choose not to know that fair is right and just is right.  Those who don’t play fair are ostracized.  Not because society told them so.  But because they instinctively KNOW it.  A four year old will stomp his foot and cry foul when he sees an injustice.  So I say Objective law comes from God, and you say it is in our genes.  Personally, I think we are saying almost the same thing.  Morality is not something we invented, but rather something that is innate, intrinsic, to every man.

 
To say that traits developed to advance the survival chances of our genes are “something outside ourselves” is like saying our kidneys, which developed for exactly the same reason are “something outside ourselves”.
Your idea that morality is intrinsic is also suspect. A moral code is, in its simplest form, just a list of things you may or may not do. If the moral code conforms to our innate feelings it will be workable and we will probably follow it. You may wonder why most North American Catholics do not follow the pope’s moral teaching on contraceptives. Well, one answer is that the teaching lacks utility and not following this code does not go against the innate instincts of North American Catholics to the extent that the balance of guilt to utility is resolved in favour of the pope.

@mk:
</blockquote> Ahhh, but Gordon,
It isn’t about the womens body.  That is the crux of the matter.  You just said yourself that the child is unwanted.  That is your rationalization.  Never even tried to say that it “isn’t” a child.  That objective fact stands.  It is a child.  It is unwanted.  It is a teenager.  It is unwanted.  It is an elderly person.  It is unwanted. </blockquote>
You seem to have missed the point entirely so I’ll repeat myself: We all always do what we want and most of the time we want to conform to our moral code. It does you no good to characterize moral decisions of which you don’t approve as “giving way to our desires” and those of which you do approve as “being moral”. We all always “give way to our desires”.

There you go making my argument again.  I may WANT to not raise a child, give birth, carry him for nine months, but I don’t do that because it would be immoral.

No, you don’t do that because you don’t want to do that enough. Otherwise you’d do it.
</blockquote> I have clearly given ample reason why it would be immoral to take the life an innocent human being, while you have done nothing except tell me that unwanted persons that place a burden on others are not afforded the same rights as those who are wanted.  I have shown what we “ought” to do, and you have shown what we “want” to do. </blockquote>
I don’t know about yours but my society looks after many persons who have no economic or social value. But abortion is nearly as rife as in the US. Note that my society does not class early term unborn children as “innocent human beings”, (and neither do the courts in the US.) In all these cases people are acting according to their moral code and in accordance with what they want to do.

I am not forcing MY morals on society.  I am ENFORCING objective morality.

As you are unable to demonstrate that your morals are objective to the society concerned you are indeed trying to force your moral code on unwilling recipients. In my book that’s real immorality and, should you ever succeed, you will cause untold misery.

You never addressed my questions on slavery/Hitler…

I am unaware of any question on slavery/Hitler I left unaddressed. Point it out to me.
</blockquote> You keep saying that you don’t believe in objective moral law, and then point out that slavery is wrong.  Well, is it?  According to your reasoning (that societies decide what is right and wrong), it was right when the law said it was right.  Was it?  Or was it wrong in spite of what the law said?  If so, why?  Why was it wrong, even tho the law said it was right?
You’ve backed yourself into a corner here.  Either you must admit that if a society says that slavery is right, then you also think it is right, or you must admit that morality cannot be dictated by societies and regardless of the law, slavery is wrong.  I think anyone reading our conversation can see the inconsistencies in your argument.  Why can’t you?  (I’m not being snarky…I really don’t get it.  You seem intelligent, yet miss your own lack of logic.) </blockquote>
I addressed this in my last post. I have never declared slavery to be objectively wrong. If I have ever used that phraseology I will have made it clear that I was talking about my own moral code.

Gordon,

No, you declare man to have been wrong for most of recorded history because he doesn’t conform to your view.

lol…man has been murderings, committing adultery, stealing, lying and cheating for all of human history.  And yes, I think they have been wrong in doing so, precisely because they don’t conform to reality.  Objective reality.  These things and more are objectively wrong. That men do them is not proof that they are right.  Crazy talk.

And for the record, it isn’t “my view”.  It is what IS.  It isn’t true because it’s my view.  It’s my view, because it’s true.

You will struggle to show a post where I have said this or anything like it.

I didn’t have to struggle very hard…

Your words:

Slavery is indeed wrong in my moral code but it was not wrong in moral code of slave owners.

More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.

So what you have said is that in your view slavery was wrong, but it wasn’t wrong in their view.  So why is it wrong in your view?  Would it have been wrong in your view if you had lived back then?  Would you have a different view because you lived in a society that told you it was right, and you’d accept that?

Society today tells us that abortion is “right”.  Yet half of America thinks it is wrong.  How can that be if right and wrong are simply dictated by what society says?  How can I have a different opinion? 

You think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.  The law says that at this point in time, they cannot in most states.  So is it right because the law says so?

As for a kidney developing because of something outside of us…of course it does.  It does not develop because of anything you do or don’t do.  It happens independently of our wills.  That is what is meant by outside of us.  Outside of us doesn’t mean a physical “thing” that exists in the physical universe “outside” of us.  It means that it happens due to nothing that we do or don’t do.

You will struggle to show a post where I have said this or anything like it.

I didn’t have to struggle very hard…

Your words:

Slavery is indeed wrong in my moral code but it was not wrong in moral code of slave owners.

More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.

So what you have said is that in your view slavery was wrong, but it wasn’t wrong in their view.  So why is it wrong in your view?  Would it have been wrong in your view if you had lived back then?  Would you have a different view because you lived in a society that told you it was right, and you’d accept that?

Society today tells us that abortion is “right”.  Yet half of America thinks it is wrong.  How can that be if right and wrong are simply dictated by what society says?  How can I have a different opinion? 

You think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.  The law says that at this point in time, they cannot in most states.  So is it right because the law says so?

As for a kidney developing because of something outside of us…of course it does.  It does not develop because of anything you do or don’t do.  It happens independently of our wills.  That is what is meant by outside of us.  Outside of us doesn’t mean a physical “thing” that exists in the physical universe “outside” of us.  It means that it happens due to nothing that we do or don’t do.

We all always do what we want and most of the time we want to conform to our moral code.

Baloney!  Every day we come against choices that require a decision to what is right, or what is wrong.  Race through the yellow light and make the guy waiting to turn left do so after the light turns red.  Eat a grape at the grocery store that you haven’t paid for.  Snap at your wife, or kid or dog.  Walk over the blouse on the floor at Walmart.  Eat the second donut.  Use your girlfriends body without benefit of a commitment to her.  Look at porn (that’s someone’s daughter/sister).  There is what we ought to do, and then there is what we actually do.  Sure, we behave morally when it’s no skin off of our nose.  But when the moral choice interferes with the selfish ego, all bets are off. 

This whole article was based on “ought” vs “want”.  Mr. Shea claims that those who don’t believe in God will more often than not do what they want, and that that is their moral code.  Those of us who practice our Faith, and not just give it lip service, often forgo what we “want” in favor of what we “ought”.  Granted, as you have pointed out, what we “want” is to do the right thing no matter what (not saying we always make it), so yeah, the word want, and desire can be misleading.  What we are really saying is that your morality is based on “feeling” and ours is based on a code that we believe is bigger than us.  It is a constant battle to be sure, as we also have desires, feelings and wants, that go against what we know we ought.  But it is that “ought” that separates us.

@mk:

lol…man has been murderings, committing adultery, stealing, lying and cheating for all of human history.  And yes, I think they have been wrong in doing so, precisely because they don’t conform to reality.  Objective reality.  These things and more are objectively wrong. That men do them is not proof that they are right.  Crazy talk.

Same old stuff. You claim morality is objective because religions from the past show some consistency in their moral tenets. When that consistency breaks down, also in the historical record, you claim that they must be wrong because the new historical data doesn’t fit the old historical data. My hypothesis, on the other hand, is not phased by the historical record at all.

@mk:

I didn’t have to struggle very hard…

That’s because I put the phrase in my very next post as you well realise.

So what you have said is that in your view slavery was wrong, but it wasn’t wrong in their view.  So why is it wrong in your view?  Would it have been wrong in your view if you had lived back then?  Would you have a different view because you lived in a society that told you it was right, and you’d accept that?

If I had lived back then I would have been a different person. How can I tell what my view would have been?

Society today tells us that abortion is “right”.  Yet half of America thinks it is wrong.  How can that be if right and wrong are simply dictated by what society says?  How can I have a different opinion?

This sort of clash in society is common. You must have noticed the odd civil war in history?

You think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.  The law says that at this point in time, they cannot in most states.  So is it right because the law says so?

It will be right for those people whose moral code says it is right.

As for a kidney developing because of something outside of us…of course it does.  It does not develop because of anything you do or don’t do.  It happens independently of our wills.  That is what is meant by outside of us.  Outside of us doesn’t mean a physical “thing” that exists in the physical universe “outside” of us.  It means that it happens due to nothing that we do or don’t do.

You are being disingenuous. You originally used the phrase “outside of ourselves” to mean independent of us. Human traits developed in humans in response to evolutionary pressure. These changes definitely depend on internal human physiology. Just because the changes are not consciously under our control does not mean they are independent of us or occur “outside of ourselves”. And especially they are very unlikely to be the work of gods.

That’s because I put the phrase in my very next post as you well realise.

Of course I realize.  That’s what I meant.  You made it awfully easy to meet the challenge.  Just pokin’ a little fun.  Hence the LOL…?

You claim morality is objective because religions from the past show some consistency in their moral tenets. When that consistency breaks down, also in the historical record, you claim that they must be wrong because the new historical data doesn’t fit the old historical data. My hypothesis, on the other hand, is not phased by the historical record at all.

Now who’s putting words in someones mouth?  I have never claimed it is either or.  I said that men throughout history (never said it was only religion) have always held certain moral truths to be true.  I also said that they rarely live up to what they know is right.  Knowing it and doing it are two different things.  There would be no point to the word “ought” if everyone automatically did the right thing, now would there?  I know that I should eat right and not smoke.  I know that smoking is wrong.  Yet I continue to smoke.  I am wrong.  But my being wrong does not negate the fact that smoking is wrong.  200 years ago people didn’t know that smoking was wrong.  It still was, but they didn’t understand.  Waaaaaay up there somewhere I said that being wrong does not mean being culpable.  You may not be consciously doing the wrong thing, or you might.  Slavery was always wrong.  Men just didn’t realize it.  That’s like saying that polio didn’t exist until recognized it. 

And your theory most certainly does not hold up to history.  Your morality changes with the wind.  That is not morality.  That is a value system.  Two very different things.

You may not value all human life, but that doesn’t make you right when you condone abortion. 

It will be right for those people whose moral code says it is right.

Is rape right for those people whose moral codes says that it is?  Is pedophilia?  Is bullying?

Just because the changes are not consciously under our control does not mean they are independent of us or occur “outside of ourselves”.

Of course it does.  That is exactly what the phrase “outside of ourselves” means.  And who said anything about the work of “gods”?  I have no problem with your theory that we are “programmed” to know right from wrong.  It’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

If I had lived back then I would have been a different person. How can I tell what my view would have been?

You can tell, because you are telling me that the law dictates your morality.  So you would have thought it was right. 

I’m curious tho.  If morality is not objective, and is not outside of us, then why/how do people usually choose to do the “moral” thing, as you claim.  Don’t you mean that most people follow the laws of the society in which they live?  BTW, that’s not morality.  That is avoiding unpleasant consequences.  It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Look…here is the definition of objective…which is what I mean when I say outside of us…

adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

We don’t make it up.  We don’t invent it.  If it’s genetic, it happens objectively.  It’s not like we think ourselves into being.  Or that we choose what genes we want…

How do you reconcile these two statements?

1.  More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.

2.    (You think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.  The law says that at this point in time, they cannot in most states.  So is it right because the law says so?)

It will be right for those people whose moral code says it is right.

Which is it?  It’s right depending on how the individual sees it?  Or it’s right because society says it is?  Because you are contradicting yourself there…

@mk:

Baloney!  Every day we come against choices that require a decision to what is right, or what is wrong.  Race through the yellow light and make the guy waiting to turn left do so after the light turns red.  Eat a grape at the grocery store that you haven’t paid for.  Snap at your wife, or kid or dog.  Walk over the blouse on the floor at Walmart.  Eat the second donut.  Use your girlfriends body without benefit of a commitment to her.  Look at porn (that’s someone’s daughter/sister).  There is what we ought to do, and then there is what we actually do.  Sure, we behave morally when it’s no skin off of our nose.  But when the moral choice interferes with the selfish ego, all bets are off.

Well, I can’t speak for Catholics of course. On thinking about it, maybe Catholics do want to disregard their moral code a lot of the time. I wouldn’t be surprised as it contains so much inappropriate stuff. My moral code is probably a lot easier to stick to. It’s based on treating everybody well and doing no harm.
What I don’t seem to be able to get through to you is that insofar as you do act morally it’s because, on balance, you want to. Just as when you want to act selfishly you do that too.

This whole article was based on “ought” vs “want”.  Mr. Shea claims that those who don’t believe in God will more often than not do what they want, and that that is their moral code.  Those of us who practice our Faith, and not just give it lip service, often forgo what we “want” in favor of what we “ought”.  Granted, as you have pointed out, what we “want” is to do the right thing no matter what (not saying we always make it), so yeah, the word want, and desire can be misleading.  What we are really saying is that your morality is based on “feeling” and ours is based on a code that we believe is bigger than us.  It is a constant battle to be sure, as we also have desires, feelings and wants, that go against what we know we ought.  But it is that “ought” that separates us.

Mr Shea’s idea of reality is as deluded as yours.

Gordon,
“Your claim that faith pierces to underlying truth is only a claim which cannot be substantiated.”
You’re ignoring the testimony, or “witness” of billions of believers.  Does something have to appear on a scanning electron microscope to be true?

“You’re ignoring the testimony, or “witness” of billions of believers.  Does something have to appear on a scanning electron microscope to be true?”

So the trick to making something true to to create a story that enough gullible people will believe?  That tactic didn’t exactly make the earth flat and the center of the universe…did it?

Gordon,

It’s based on treating everybody well and doing no harm.

Which is almost verbatim, the code of Wiccans.  The problem comes in defining “doing no harm”.  You say that abortion is not morally wrong, yet it goes against the very moral code you claim to practice…do no harm. 

I wouldn’t be surprised as it contains so much inappropriate stuff.

And what do you base that assessment on?  You say that it is deluded thinking to claim that you base your morality on feelings, and yet you find no contradiction in claiming that our morality contains inappropriate “stuff” based on your feelings. 

Let’s look at our two views again.

You state that morality is genetically programmed into us (which I claim is objective), and that the morals that we follow are dictated by the society we live in and what they value.  You also claim that most people follow these types of morals because they are genetically predisposed to cooperative living. Yet you also say that you yourself disagree, as an individual, with many of these laws.  You fail to see the contradiction.

I hold that morality is objective, something that we did not invent, but that is “outside of us” (meaning objective) and that we “ought” to follow.  I don’t claim to know whether they are genetically fostered into our being or not, only that they are there, and they are objective.  I also say that human nature is such that we seek pleasure and avoid pain, and that sometimes this causes us not to heed our innate moral code, but to act against it, and therein lies the supreme struggle of man.  I have my own reasons for explaining this dichotomy of desires, to do good, but also to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but why it is so is not as important as acknowledging that it IS so.  No contradictions. 

Your argument is circular, while mine is linear.  Yours is it’s own undoing.  The only way yours can work, and it can, is if you admit that there is an objective morality (you need not say where it comes from, you can say it is genetic) and that man often fails to heed this innate morality.  What you cannot say, and remain coherent, is that it is not innate, and that it changes with society, yet claim that individuals within that society don’t necessarily adhere to hit.  If it is innate in us to follow societies lead, then there would be no dissent.  If it is not innate, then there can be dissent, but there cannot be any real morality.  We call this view, moral relativism.  We call it death.

“Your claim that faith pierces to underlying truth is only a claim which cannot be substantiated.”

And yours can be substantiated, how?  Define substantiated, and then use that definition to substantiate your own claim.

@mk:

Of course I realize.  That’s what I meant.  You made it awfully easy to meet the challenge.  Just pokin’ a little fun.  Hence the LOL…?

So we are left with your claim that I said “slavery is wrong” without clearly indicating I meant within my moral system. Thus you intimated that I subscribed to some sort of moral objectivity. Another straw man. Try not to pick up Mark Shea’s bad habits.

</blockquote>Now who’s putting words in someones mouth?  I have never claimed it is either or.  I said that men throughout history (never said it was only religion) have always held certain moral truths to be true.  I also said that they rarely live up to what they know is right.  Knowing it and doing it are two different things.  There would be no point to the word “ought” if everyone automatically did the right thing, now would there?  I know that I should eat right and not smoke.  I know that smoking is wrong.  Yet I continue to smoke.  I am wrong.  But my being wrong does not negate the fact that smoking is wrong.  200 years ago people didn’t know that smoking was wrong.  It still was, but they didn’t understand.  Waaaaaay up there somewhere I said that being wrong does not mean being culpable.  You may not be consciously doing the wrong thing, or you might.  Slavery was always wrong.  Men just didn’t realize it.  That’s like saying that polio didn’t exist until recognized it. </blockquote>

Ah I see. So your actual intention was to claim that the widespread use of slavery in recorded history happened despite the fact that the moral system in play was akin to your “objective” one claiming it to be wrong. Unfortunate for you that there is no evidence that was the case.

And your theory most certainly does not hold up to history.

Would you like to back that up with evidence? Or is it just another unsubstantiated claim?

Your morality changes with the wind.  That is not morality.  That is a value system.  Two very different things.

When someone chooses to be dismissive about another person’s position it’s a sure sign they can’t find a descent argument to oppose it.

You may not value all human life, but that doesn’t make you right when you condone abortion.

 
It makes me right by my own moral code.

It will be right for those people whose moral code says it is right.
Is rape right for those people whose moral codes says that it is?  Is pedophilia?  Is bullying?

Now you’ve got it. We can judge something to be wrong by our own moral standards but things are only wrong if they contravene the moral system in play locally. Of course we can suspect that some behaviours will not be conducive to a well functioning society for several reasons:
We can suspect by our own reaction that they are likely to fall foul of human instinct even though cultural conditioning or withdrawal of “in group” status must have overcome this if the practice is widespread
We can note that other societies that condoned the behaviour in history met with a sticky end
We may be able to observe the dysfunctional nature of the society condoning the practice of which we disapprove.

Of course it does.  That is exactly what the phrase “outside of ourselves” means.  And who said anything about the work of “gods”?  I have no problem with your theory that we are “programmed” to know right from wrong.  It’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

Ah so if what you really mean by “outside of ourselves” is not consciously decided by us and therefore, in that sense objective, I have no problem with that. Yes, the existence of social emotions and instincts in the vast majority of human beings is an objective fact.
</blockquote>You can tell, because you are telling me that the law dictates your morality.  So you would have thought it was right. </blockquote>
Another unfounded claim. Although it is true that obedience to the law of the land is part of my moral code. But of course that doesn’t mean that I approve of everything the law allows. For instance, the law allows for the religious indoctrination of young children and I disapprove of this even though I recognise the right of parents to do it. It may be that I might have disapproved of slavery when there were slaves. Many people did.

</blockquote>I’m curious tho.  If morality is not objective, and is not outside of us, then why/how do people usually choose to do the “moral” thing, as you claim.  Don’t you mean that most people follow the laws of the society in which they live?  BTW, that’s not morality.  That is avoiding unpleasant consequences.  It has nothing to do with right or wrong. </blockquote>
The existence of a moral code is objective. A moral code, from the point of view of society, is a code of behaviour. It doesn’t matter what you think or what emotions or instincts motivate you. As long as the resulting behaviour falls within the code other society members will accept it without reproof, (assuming they are equally committed to the moral code).
What is actually in the moral code depends on the preference of men to some degree and is therefore subjective. Moral decisions of any complexity depend upon human assessment of consequences or other factors and are therefore also subjective.
Many religions stick things into their moral codes which are not concerned with the relations between men. From my point of view this is a mistake. However, if they want to think of these things as morality I’m not at liberty to stop them anyway I don’t care much either.

How do you reconcile these two statements?
1. More accurately I believe the terms right and wrong are defined as consistency or its lack with the prevailing moral code. I base the validity of society’s moral code on the authority of the members of the society who have to live by it.
2. (You think homosexuals should be allowed to get married.  The law says that at this point in time, they cannot in most states.  So is it right because the law says so?)
It will be right for those people whose moral code says it is right.
Which is it?  It’s right depending on how the individual sees it?  Or it’s right because society says it is?  Because you are contradicting yourself there…

I am judging homosexual marriage by my moral code when I say I think it’s OK. Clearly those states which don’t allow it take a different view or haven’t got round to amending the law yet.

@Matt B:
</blockquote>You’re ignoring the testimony, or “witness” of billions of believers.  Does something have to appear on a scanning electron microscope to be true? </blockquote>
Well, 2000 thousand years ago I could have got millions to testify that the Earth was flat and they would have had better evidence than mere belief.

Gordon, you’re making erroneous anachronistic comparisons again:

“Well, 2000 thousand years ago I could have got millions to testify that the Earth was flat and they would have had better evidence than mere belief.”

Within the relevant range of experience, the earth is flat. 

Your scientific assumptions betray a similar bias.  It’s not that your observations are strictly false, just true only “within the relevant range of experience.”  Faith introduces to the discussion a wider relevant range of experience about which “scientific analysis” is willfully or negligently blind.

BTW, Martyrs have shed their blood to witness to the truth of faith.  What have the scientists done beside blauviate?

. Yes, the existence of social emotions and instincts in the vast majority of human beings is an objective fact.

Finally.  And your denial of this up until now is why your view appeared inconsistent…and why I originally said I was confused.

The existence of a moral code is objective. A moral code, from the point of view of society, is a code of behaviour. It doesn’t matter what you think or what emotions or instincts motivate you. As long as the resulting behaviour falls within the code other society members will accept it without reproof, (assuming they are equally committed to the moral code).

Now we’re getting somewhere.  So you agree that there is a difference between our innate sense of morality, and the laws that a society embraces.  Sometimes they will be the same and sometimes not.  There is, in other words, a difference between morality, and moral codes?

I am judging homosexual marriage by my moral code when I say I think it’s OK. Clearly those states which don’t allow it take a different view or haven’t got round to amending the law yet.

And this is what I have been asserting all along.  You say homosexual marriage is right.  I say it is wrong.  Either one of us is wrong and the other right, or both of us are wrong.  Now if, as you say, morality is objective (something that we do not invent but “inherit”) then the trick is to find out what the objective truth is.  Not what I think, or what you think, but what is.  This is the point where you usually say that society decides, BUT, you have already admitted that you don’t always agree with society.

All I have been trying to show you is that morality is objective.  This does not mean we have mastered it yet.  Yes, some people thought the earth was flat.  But they were WRONG.  The earth’s shape is not dictated by what the people think.  Morality is not dictated by what people think.  People were free to live as though the earth was flat, just as they are free in America to kill their unborn children.  Was the earth flat because people chose to believe it was?  Is killing our unborn children right be cause people choose to believe it is?  Or is the earth round and those people believed a falsehood?  Is abortion wrong and people today are also believing a falsehood?  Does belief or conviction affect reality, or are we called to change our beliefs and convictions to fit reality?  That is the question!  You seem to believe that what we think, is what is.  I hold that we need to see what is, and think that.

Is it wrong because we say it is wrong?  Or do we say it is wrong because it IS wrong?  Is it round because we say it is round, or do we say it is round because it IS round.

Science is meant to see reality on the physical plane.  That’s it.  Technology is meant to use science to manipulate the physical plane…not to manipulate reality.

Religion is meant to see reality on the metaphysical plane.  That’s it.

In order to truly understand ALL of reality, we must seek the truth on both planes.  To eliminate either one is to deny reality as a whole.  I can no more cling to my religion and forsake science than you can cling to science and forsake metaphysics.  Either view leaves you only seeing half of reality.  I am not satisfied with seeing only half of reality.  This is why I am Catholic.  I embrace science AND Faith.  So does the Catholic Church.  That is why she is called the Church of Faith and Reason.  She sees reality as a whole.  Your view does not do that.

@mk:

The problem comes in defining “doing no harm”.  You say that abortion is not morally wrong, yet it goes against the very moral code you claim to practice…do no harm.

It’s a matter of the lesser of two evils. To my mind depriving a women of her personal control of her own bodily functions and bringing an unwanted child into the world are much the worse option, truly immoral.

And what do you base that assessment on?  You say that it is deluded thinking to claim that you base your morality on feelings, and yet you find no contradiction in claiming that our morality contains inappropriate “stuff” based on your feelings.

 
That’s my view based on inadequate information it’s true. But as an example we can note how Catholic Anglo-Saxon Americans have almost the same size families as other Anglo-Saxon Americans. This shows that they have overwhelmingly rejected the popes teaching on contraception.

Let’s look at our two views again.

  You state that morality is genetically programmed into us (which I claim is objective), and that the morals that we follow are dictated by the society we live in and what they value.  You also claim that most people follow these types of morals because they are genetically predisposed to cooperative living. Yet you also say that you yourself disagree, as an individual, with many of these laws.  You fail to see the contradiction.

No, I maintain that the social instincts and emotions that motivate co-operative behaviour are, (like all other traits), genetically programmed by natural selection. What gets into the moral code of conduct is a different thing. Certainly social instincts have an influence but the moral code of conduct is a product of other things as well, notably culture. Whether one disagrees with particular aspect of the moral code in play doesn’t matter. Only one’s conduct is relevant from society’s point of view.

I hold that morality is objective, something that we did not invent, but that is “outside of us” (meaning objective) and that we “ought” to follow.  I don’t claim to know whether they are genetically fostered into our being or not, only that they are there, and they are objective.  I also say that human nature is such that we seek pleasure and avoid pain, and that sometimes this causes us not to heed our innate moral code, but to act against it, and therein lies the supreme struggle of man.  I have my own reasons for explaining this dichotomy of desires, to do good, but also to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but why it is so is not as important as acknowledging that it IS so.  No contradictions.

You have no evidence other than some commonality between different societies over time to demonstrate objectivity. These commonalities are easily explained in a simpler manner. Where big changes are observed, such as the abolition of slavery, you are unable to explain how slavery was OK for most of human history. You are reduced to saying that people acted, as they frequently do, against their moral code of conduct. This foolish explanation shows a basic lack of understanding of the relationship between society and its moral code. When the majority of society acts in a certain way because that way has utility for them it becomes part of the moral code because the utility of the behaviour has brought widespread approval.

Your argument is circular, while mine is linear.  Yours is it’s own undoing.  The only way yours can work, and it can, is if you admit that there is an objective morality (you need not say where it comes from, you can say it is genetic) and that man often fails to heed this innate morality.  What you cannot say, and remain coherent, is that it is not innate, and that it changes with society, yet claim that individuals within that society don’t necessarily adhere to hit.  If it is innate in us to follow societies lead, then there would be no dissent.  If it is not innate, then there can be dissent, but there cannot be any real morality.  We call this view, moral relativism.  We call it death.

Do you even understand what a circular argument is? As usual the only way you can criticise me is by misrepresenting my point of view. That is by building a straw man.
It is patently obvious by reading history that what it is moral to do has changed over time and between societies. To us, many Muslims are paedophiles, yet you can be sure they are behaving according to the mores of their own society. For them particular forms of paedophilia are right. We believe it is evil to use minors for the personal gratification of their elders. We can suspect that the dysfunctional nature of many Muslim societies is an indication that their moral code does not serve them well and we expect that they will reform or fail. But only the long view of history can confirm our view. The main thing you should note is that when a moral system contributes to the decline of a society, that contribution is not because the system is evil in some absolute reckoning but because it lacks utility. The pope’s view of moral relativism is a simplistic straw man he has erected to give him something to shoot at. 

What is innate in us is passed on genetically. This process is not perfect. The degree to which all traits are passed on varies between individuals. This is a source of dissent. But we are also culturally influenced by our upbringing which varies hugely also, another source of dissent.

@mk:
“Your claim that faith pierces to underlying truth is only a claim which cannot be substantiated.”

And yours can be substantiated, how?  Define substantiated, and then use that definition to substantiate your own claim.

“Substantiated” - To have supported with proof or evidence
It’s not clear to me which claim you believe I’m making. If your are saying that I claim that faith does not pierce to underlying truth then I would say that my claim is a negative claim and is reasonable, as all negative claims which are supported by lack of evidence to the contrary are reasonable. Basically it’s an inference because of lack of evidence to the contrary. This kind of claim is generally accepted because it’s usually impossible to prove negative claims absolutely.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that I am claiming you have no good evidence for your claim, I agree that is an assumption on my part based on the fact that you have presented no evidence and neither has anyone else to my knowledge.

@Matt B:

Gordon, you’re making erroneous anachronistic comparisons again:

Within the relevant range of experience, the earth is flat. 

Your scientific assumptions betray a similar bias.  It’s not that your observations are strictly false, just true only “within the relevant range of experience.”  Faith introduces to the discussion a wider relevant range of experience about which “scientific analysis” is willfully or negligently blind.

BTW, Martyrs have shed their blood to witness to the truth of faith.  What have the scientists done beside blauviate?

The trouble is that you have no evidence for your claim that “faith introduces to the discussion a wider relevant range of experience” other than your imagination. Science also doesn’t take into account the possible existence of Middle Earth or Narnia. If science included extensions to its investigations based on nothing but human imagination it would get nowhere.
2000 years ago man could have noted the curvature of the horizon when looking out to sea. He could have hypothesised that the phases of the moon were due to the Earth’s shadow passing across it. But he didn’t do these things. He went no farther than noticing the apparent flatness of the land. But mainly he went with the argumentum ad populum as you appeared to have done.  You at least have the excuse that there is no other argument for your case.
The demonstrated strength with which any number of martyrs hold their view cannot substitute for evidence. You will note that Galileo did not martyr himself for his heliocentric views. He new that science and the evidence would eventually prevail.

Gordon,

I am asking you to substantiate (support with proof or evidence) that we are genetically predisposed to fairness, justice, etc. and cooperation with each other.  Show me some proof of these “genes”.  Prove to me that these traits are physically in the genes and not metaphysical ideas.

Gordon,

Science also doesn’t take into account the possible existence of Middle Earth or Narnia.

Neither does the Catholic Church. 

You ask for “evidence” yet you do not seem to understand that there is a difference between metaphysics and science.  I do not confuse the two.  I recognize that science deals with the physical world, while metaphysics deals with the supernatural or world of ideas.  Asking for scientific proof of metaphysical ideas does not show how silly metaphysics is. It only shows that you don’t understand what metaphysics means. 

God is not “A” being.  He is not another creature among many.  He is not someone on whom you can do a blood test or take a hair sample.  He is being itself.  He is not “out there” somewhere.  He exists outside of space and time as He created space and time.  Science deals with what He created, but it cannot deal with Him.  When you demand “proof” of God and expect us to produce a photograph or fingernail clipping you are completely missing who/what God is.  To say that He exists in our imagination like unicorns or dragons is to show your own ignorance of what is meant by God, not ours.  It’s like trying to take a hair sample of love itself, or a DNA swab of beauty or justice. It cannot be done, and yet lack of this sort of evidence does not cause you to claim that love does not exist…

@mk:
Yes, the existence of social emotions and instincts in the vast majority of human beings is an objective fact.

Finally.  And your denial of this up until now is why your view appeared inconsistent…and why I originally said I was confused.

Try as you might you will not be able to find any post in which I have denied this. You’ve built yourself another straw man.
The existence of a moral code is objective. A moral code, from the point of view of society, is a code of behaviour. It doesn’t matter what you think or what emotions or instincts motivate you. As long as the resulting behaviour falls within the code other society members will accept it without reproof, (assuming they are equally committed to the moral code).

Now we’re getting somewhere.  So you agree that there is a difference between our innate sense of morality, and the laws that a society embraces.  Sometimes they will be the same and sometimes not.  There is, in other words, a difference between morality, and moral codes?

I would call it an innate set of social instincts and emotions. There certainly is difference between this and a body of law or a moral code of conduct. I have been using the definition of “morality” present in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. By this definition morality and moral code are equivalent albeit the code might be a theoretical one of indeterminate content. If you wish some other definition for morality, and I accept there are others, please specify.
I am judging homosexual marriage by my moral code when I say I think it’s OK. Clearly those states which don’t allow it take a different view or haven’t got round to amending the law yet.

</blockquote>And this is what I have been asserting all along.  You say homosexual marriage is right.  I say it is wrong.  Either one of us is wrong and the other right, or both of us are wrong. Now if, as you say, morality is objective (something that we do not invent but “inherit”) then the trick is to find out what the objective truth is.  Not what I think, or what you think, but what is.  This is the point where you usually say that society decides, BUT, you have already admitted that you don’t always agree with society. </blockquote>
As I define right or wrong in relation to the moral system in play I see no reason why we both can’t be right according to our own codes. I do not say the morality is objective. I say that the existence of a moral code is an objective fact. Moreover clearly humans do have subjective input into their moral codes.
The fact that I don’t always agree with every aspect of the moral code in play in my society does not mean that I don’t believe that society will not dump tenets that its members cease to find useful.

All I have been trying to show you is that morality is objective.  This does not mean we have mastered it yet.  Yes, some people thought the earth was flat.  But they were WRONG.  The earth’s shape is not dictated by what the people think.  Morality is not dictated by what people think.  People were free to live as though the earth was flat, just as they are free in America to kill their unborn children.  Was the earth flat because people chose to believe it was?  Is killing our unborn children right be cause people choose to believe it is?  Or is the earth round and those people believed a falsehood?  Is abortion wrong and people today are also believing a falsehood?  Does belief or conviction affect reality, or are we called to change our beliefs and convictions to fit reality?  That is the question!  You seem to believe that what we think, is what is.  I hold that we need to see what is, and think that.

You have been trying to show that morality is objective, (keeping in mind that I now don’t know what you mean by morality), but you have signally failed. This failure means that your flat world analogy is not worth a lot.
It is you who wishes to alter reality to fit your unproven conviction that your particular moral code conforms to objective reality.

Science is meant to see reality on the physical plane.  That’s it.  Technology is meant to use science to manipulate the physical plane…not to manipulate reality. Religion is meant to see reality on the metaphysical plane.  That’s it. In order to truly understand ALL of reality, we must seek the truth on both planes.  To eliminate either one is to deny reality as a whole.  I can no more cling to my religion and forsake science than you can cling to science and forsake metaphysics.  Either view leaves you only seeing half of reality.  I am not satisfied with seeing only half of reality.  This is why I am Catholic.  I embrace science AND Faith.  So does the Catholic Church.  That is why she is called the Church of Faith and Reason.  She sees reality as a whole.  Your view does not do that.

Science has, from time to time, made attempts to detect something beyond the material universe by attempting to detect any effects some have proposed that this other world has on the material world. Science has so far failed to detect any such effects. It therefore treats claims of the existence of such a world as without evidence and recourse to explanations of reality based on this undetected world as wishful thinking.

Gordon,

It therefore treats claims of the existence of such a world as without evidence and recourse to explanations of reality based on this undetected world as wishful thinking.

No Gordon, you, not science, have come to that conclusion.  Show me a legitimate scientific entity has come to the conclusion that metaphysics does not exist. 

At the very least one might conclude that there is no PHYSICAL evidence of a metaphysical world, but that is hardly the same as evidence that there is none.  I have never made the claim that there IS or CAN BE such evidence.  You are the one insisting that there must be.  By your own admission the effects of a thing can be considered evidence.  You have given me no evidence to substantiate your claim that we all are genetically predisposed to certain moral, how do you put it, social instincts and emotions.  You make the statement that this is objectively true and clear to all, yet your claim remains as unsubstantiated as mine.  Where is the PHYSICAL evidence for such a claim?

What is the PHYSICAL evidence that justice, fairness, love, beauty, honor, courage, morality…exist?

“What is the PHYSICAL evidence that justice, fairness, love, beauty, honor, courage, morality…exist?”.

LOL, funny.  Are you working on turning god into a feeling, emotion or reaction?

Gordon, Yeah Right - this is the really funny thing:  you’re denying any standing in evidence to the things that really, really matter.  And instead, you’re giving the pride of place to really, really insignificant things, which your scientific instruments can measure, but can’t really evaluate.  It’s like the old adage: a miser knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.  “Justice, fairness, love, beauty, honor, courage, morality…” it’s not that they don’t exist.  It’s just that your instruments haven’t found a way to measure them. 

There is just one instrument, in fact, that can detect these rare but precious commodities: the human heart.  The heart recognizes, understands, lives for and dies for these “abstract qualities” you so cavalierly dismiss.  No one dies for copper or tin or oil or even gold.  If they do you say how terribly mistaken was their choice.  But people do die for justice, for peace, for family, for love. 

You put a weight of truth on the infinitesimally smallest things detected only with a cadre of arcane scientific instruments.  Conversely, you put your faith in things that happened billions of years ago, in places astronomic distances away, through the foggy evidence of microwaves.  Yet what’s indisputably here, on earth, in your lifetime, living on your street, and maybe in your own home - you treat as non-existent, because “scientists” have yet to invent an instrument to detect it. 

Or maybe they have… maybe better scientists than the ones you’re idolizing have invented a lens to capture these evanescent realities.  And what if they do exist, and point out the way to a “real earth,” a “real heaven” that are awaiting just beyond the grey mundane - where people worship electrons, but ignore the magnificent feats that God can accomplish with various combinations of the same.

@mk:

I am asking you to substantiate (support with proof or evidence) that we are genetically predisposed to fairness, justice, etc. and cooperation with each other.  Show me some proof of these “genes”.  Prove to me that these traits are physically in the genes and not metaphysical ideas.

I have no biology knowledge so I wouldn’t even know how to look for information on what genes carry which traits. I go by studies of zoologists, primatologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists.
Here are some pages that might help:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue71/Darwin_On_Moral_Intelligence
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CDgQFjAEOAo&url=http://mfs.uchicago.edu/pastworkshops/sciencemorality/readings/rosas.pdf&rct=j&q=evolution, social emotions and instincts&ei=WVGDTvCAN-KH0AW-gKXXAQ&usg=AFQjCNH-KPpMUMGhsz-0Pr97sm3HJxDvrA&cad=rja
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Conduct/00000014.htm

Here’s a book about which you can probably find a summary:

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation By Matt Ridley PhD

@mk:

Asking for scientific proof of metaphysical ideas does not show how silly metaphysics is. It only shows that you don’t understand what metaphysics means.

I cannot say that metaphysical worlds don’t exist. What is important to us is: Do they have any effect on our world? So far scientists have not been able to detect any effects in the physical world of metaphysics. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that metaphysics is probably rubbish and even if it isn’t it doesn’t matter because there are no known effects on the material world we live in.

@mk:

No Gordon, you, not science, have come to that conclusion.  Show me a legitimate scientific entity has come to the conclusion that metaphysics does not exist.

You’re building yourself a straw man again. Neither I nor science make the positive claim that that metaphysics doesn’t exist. Both I and science merely proceed on that assumption due to the lack of evidence. 

What is the PHYSICAL evidence that justice, fairness, love, beauty, honor, courage, morality…exist?

These are all abstract and they do not exist in the same sense that material things exist. Some of them may have a material existence which can be seen by scientific instruments examining the brain. However, unlike metaphysics, there is good evidence for the existence of all these things. Because something is abstract does not mean it is as insubstantial as metaphysics. Metaphysics is in the same class as Narnia and Middle Earth as it exists, as far as we can tell, only as an idea.

@Matt B:

“Justice, fairness, love, beauty, honor, courage, morality…” it’s not that they don’t exist.  It’s just that your instruments haven’t found a way to measure them.

 
Abstract things can still be shown to exist because of their effects on the real world. Even ideas, which are even less substantial, can have large real world effects. But the entities to which ideas refer must await evidence to validate their existence.

  There is just one instrument, in fact, that can detect these rare but precious commodities: the human heart.  The heart recognizes, understands, lives for and dies for these “abstract qualities” you so cavalierly dismiss.  No one dies for copper or tin or oil or even gold.  If they do you say how terribly mistaken was their choice.  But people do die for justice, for peace, for family, for love.

 
There is plenty of evidence that some animals understand the concept of fairness and that they experience love, courage and that they are subject to a moral code of conduct.

Gordon,

These are all abstract and they do not exist in the same sense that material things exist.

Well, no kidding.  And yet you claim that they DO exist.  How do you know they exist.  What is your EVIDENCE?

Neither I nor science make the positive claim that that metaphysics doesn’t exist.

then:

Science has so far failed to detect any such effects. It therefore treats claims of the existence of such a world as without evidence and recourse to explanations of reality based on this undetected world as wishful thinking.

then:

Abstract things can still be shown to exist because of their effects on the real world. Even ideas, which are even less substantial, can have large real world effects.

then:

There is plenty of evidence that some animals understand the concept of fairness and that they experience love, courage and that they are subject to a moral code of conduct.

Forgive me if I say that I am feeling a little bit dizzy right now.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here as it is obvious that you do not have a clear understanding of what is meant by “metaphysics”.

Let’s go back to your original claim.  Love, beauty, courage, justice, fairness…all of these and more, you say are simply genetically programmed traits…I am asking you to prove it.  Your claim that you don’t know anything about biology is a cop out.  If I were to tell you that I know God exists, but since I don’t know anything about religion I can’t prove it, you’d laugh me off this website.  Either love, beauty, courage etal are empirical and provable, or they are not.  If they are, as you claim, and you are unable to provide proof of your claims, then you are being more than a little hypocritical in asking me to prove my claims that God exists. The question of the existence of God is a metaphysical one and requires metaphysical “proofs”...these I have provided. (the fact that you don’t understand that metaphysical concepts cannot be proven with empirical science notwithstanding.) But YOU are claiming that these things are not metaphysical, but physical, genetic, and yet you do not provide empirical proof of such claims?  Phooey. 

But the frosting on the cake is claiming that we can know “empirically” what animals “understand” and what they are “thinking”.  I don’t even know where to go with that…

So far scientists have not been able to detect any effects in the physical world of metaphysics.

lol…did you just make that up?

However, unlike metaphysics, there is good evidence for the existence of all these things. Because something is abstract does not mean it is as insubstantial as metaphysics. Metaphysics is in the same class as Narnia and Middle Earth as it exists, as far as we can tell, only as an idea.

Say what?  First, what is the good evidence for these things?  Second, you really don’t understand what metaphysics is, do you?  “Because something is abstract” is pretty much the definition of metaphysics. It is most certainly NOT insubstantial.  Not by the philosophical definition of substance, anyway.  “Only as an idea”???  Seriously?  That is the very heart of what metaphysics is.  That which “exists” outside of the physical, or only in the world of ideas.

Derived from the Greek meta ta physika (“after the things of nature”); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. Areas of metaphysical studies include ontology, cosmology, and often, epistemology.

Metaphysical - Longer definition: Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. Metaphysics, therefore, uses logic based on the meaning of human terms, rather than on a logic tied to human sense perception of the objective world. Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.

I would love to see you “proof” that scientists have dismissed metaphysics out of hand. 

There is plenty of evidence that some animals understand the concept of fairness and that they experience love, courage and that they are subject to a moral code of conduct.

Good Lord man!  Are you serious?  What there is is eveidence that some animals display behaviors that appear to mimic our ideas of fairness, love and courage.  This is a far, far cry from “There is plenty of evidence that some animals understand the concept of fairness and that they experience love, courage and that they are subject to a moral code of conduct.”

In one breath you tell me that the world of “ideas” is unprovable.  That scientists have dismissed this world as foolish and unprovable.  In the next you are telling me that they know what animals UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE???  lol.  Now that is some empirical proof that I’d love to see!

@mk:

  Well, no kidding.  And yet you claim that they DO exist.  How do you know they exist.  What is your EVIDENCE?

I’m not going to chase all over the internet for you. It’s too time consuming and boring. You can Google “evidence for empathy” or “evidence for fairness” or whatever and you will be spoilt for choice.
Meanwhile here is an interesting article that discusses the rise of co-operative behaviour in a far more erudite and clinical manner than I could. It was written be a Harvard professor in both maths and biology. One of his fortés appears to be the development of simple algorithms to explain under what circumstances various forms of co-operation will work as a survival strategy. Perhaps one of the most dismaying aspects of this five page article from your point of view is that he never uses the terms “right” or “wrong” once.
http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/cst-305/papers/nowak_science2006.pdf
This very clinical view that human relations are nothing to do with objective standards of right and wrong and everything to do with survival is such that I wouldn’t blame anyone with your cast of mind if they could only stomach a small part of the whole.

@mk:
Neither I nor science make the positive claim that that metaphysics doesn’t exist.
Science has so far failed to detect any such effects. It therefore treats claims of the existence of such a world as without evidence and recourse to explanations of reality based on this undetected world as wishful thinking.
Abstract things can still be shown to exist because of their effects on the real world. Even ideas, which are even less substantial, can have large real world effects.
There is plenty of evidence that some animals understand the concept of fairness and that they experience love, courage and that they are subject to a moral code of conduct.

</blockquote> Forgive me if I say that I am feeling a little bit dizzy right now. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here as it is obvious that you do not have a clear understanding of what is meant by “metaphysics”. </blockquote>
Forgive me, I was assuming you were referring to that subset of metaphysics concerned with the supernatural even though, on review, you said nothing at all to encourage that idea and started to deal with natural metaphysical ideas. Of course science completely accepts natural metaphysics as part of reality.

Gordon,

’m not going to chase all over the internet for you. It’s too time consuming and boring.

Well that’s a fine “how do you do”!  Seriously, if you asked me for proof of God and I said that I wasn’t going to give you any because it was too time consuming, what would your response be?  And if I gave you an article by a guy that believes in God and he laid out his theory of how God works, what would you say?  Because that is what your link did.  There was no proof in that article.  It was an interesting theory, but basically proved nothing.  It would be like me referring you to the Catechism as proof that God exists.

Abstract things can still be shown to exist because of their effects on the real world.

So you are saying we know that love exists because of it’s affects on the real world?  And Justice?  And beauty?

Well if that’s all the criteria you require for proof, why didn’t you say so?  God can be shown to exist because of His affect on the real world.

But somehow I don’t think you’ll accept that.

You cannot measure, using scientific methods, the affects of love or fairness on the world.  Because love and beauty and fairness are metaphysical things.  They cannot be measured with physical instruments.  Neither can God.  Billions of people can give testimony to how God has changed their lives; how God works in their lives.  This is the same sort of evidence that would be given to show how love works in peoples lives;how love has changed their lives.  You can’t put love in a test tube.  You can’t take a blood test to prove beauty.  And you can’t get a DNA sample of God.

Personal experience is the only “proof” we have of love.  Personal experience is also a “proof” of God.  We are not talking about a fad involving a few hundred people.  We are talking about billions upon billions of people since the beginning of time, all experiencing God. Now that might not be enough for you…(plenty of people are incapable of feeling love, also), but it is certainly enough to back up the claim that the possibility that all these people have believed in something real is true.

God is a metaphysical reality, just as love and truth and beauty are metaphysical realities.  You would never ask me to prove that these exist, using empirical methods.  You have experienced them, and that is enough for you.  We have experienced God and that is enough for us.