A System For Morality
May 11, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
I realized I needed to get this post up when I saw that Gregg 100 is already commenting on it. Hifi has also responded back to him, but they’re having to do it in the previous blog entry.
If you are not subscribed to the Humanist News Network, this week’s installment hit our emails yesterday. You can read my latest article, A System For Morality.
Just make sure you come back here and comment.
45 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
May 11th, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Just out of curiosity, I wonder whether you’ve made acquaintance with Steve Benson, the cartoonist at the Arizona Republic.
May 12th, 2006 @ 6:54 am
Ed Darrell–After I left the church I spent quite a few hours reading what he and his wife wrote about their own “leaving” experiences. I have never actually met him, although my good friend, Larry, used to work with his son and spent a nice evening with Steve in his home once. He had a great time with them.
May 13th, 2006 @ 7:50 am
Where can we find morality, if not in scripture? That’s an interesting question. I am troubled that it is so often raised in these days by the claim of some ill-informed person that all morality is grounded in Christian scripture. That’s simply not the case, and it’s a poor platform from which to argue in almost all extensions. Quickly, scriptures from the Abramic faiths do not account for advances in science, and especially they do not account for advances in morality.
The enlightenment guys probably had it close to right: We can reason out a moral structure, and often that structure will be superior, grounded in the real world, than a structure based on claims of magic and pure authoritarianism.
I could probably make a longer argument, but let me make just a few short observations instead:
1. Darwin notes, in chapter 5 of Descent of Man, that human altruism and other morals offer definite survival advantages in a social species such as ours. In short, there are evolutionary pressures pushing for a form of morality. And who is to gainsay the tiny sparrow, risking her life standing up to the much larger, marauding crow trying to take her eggs? It’s not a perfect analogy, but Ben Franklin thought we could discern laws of morality — the laws of “Nature’s god” — from observations in nature. Franklin was biased toward the good, I think, and his bias affected his view on this. I’m not so optimistic as he was on that score.
2. Morality clearly preceded Christianity, and Judaism. The Code of Hammurabi predates the Ten Commandments considerably. It is loaded with commercial law, and it is loaded with morality — such as the rules that butchers in the marketplace must give good weight. I think it’s difficult to argue that something is the basis of morality when morality clearly made a massive and historic appearance prior to that something.
3. Much of Christian teaching was based on Aristotle. Think about it.
4. One can compare moral codes, and one might be well informed to do it. I suggest several to look at: the 119 “rules” George Washington got from his Jesuit teachers; Franklin’s 13 virtues (and how he practiced to achieve them); the Scout law; the Rotary Club’s Four-way Test; the Magna Carta; the Bill of Rights, and others.
There was no great and unanimous Christian drive to make child abuse illegal, nor against spousal abuse, nor for clean and safe food laws, nor for safe drug laws, nor for fair labor laws, among many other things. How would this be possible, were scripture the fount of all morality?
Things to consider.
May 13th, 2006 @ 8:09 am
Some excellent points. It was only just recently that a religious legislature in my state (or was it a few?) fought really hard to to keep spousal rape a lesser crime.
Ed Darrell said, “t’s not a perfect analogy, but Ben Franklin thought we could discern laws of morality — the laws of “Nature’s god†— from observations in nature.”
I hope we’ve all moved away from this idea. Nature’s goal is to see us have as many babies as possible. I hardly think any of us women would be happy to have between 15 and 20 babies, while our husbands have another 15 to twenty babies with each of his 50 other women.
It is not nature’s goal for us to find happiness, peace of mind, world peace, or any other such thing. While altruism, empathy, and other good traits came from nature, it is hardly to our betterment to look to nature as the source of morality, nor as the source for our happiness.
May 13th, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
Noell -
Your notion that nature’s goal is to see women have as many babies as possible is a simplification of reproductive ambition – and far more like a description of the Mormon definition of women’s roles than what occurs in a more base natural system (allowing for religion to be considered a complex natural system).
Nature is self edifying. If there is too much of anything there are consequences. If there are lacking resources, food sources, or overpopulation – nature corrects these things with starvation, war and disease.
I think it is far more valuable to look to nature, and the balance that exists there, than it is to come up with some human notion of how the world should be and try to implement it even if it goes against successful examples in nature. Eventually – it will all come to what succeeds in nature.
Humans are driven to have bonding relationships (like many other animals). The over the broad expanse of humanity it is more true than not that people choose mates to stay with beyond the necessities of raising a cycle of offspring. The exceptions prove the rule – they would not stand out as undesirable if a more desirable condition had not first been established.
Nature sets the perfect example for humanity that you can not breed beyond your resources and expect to thrive – some of humanity chooses to ignore that example, especially when people are in constant struggle. Struggle increases the drive for survival, which brings babies.
If a human’s natural model was truly to breed as you have described we would be incapable of having this discussion – because humanity would not have been able to structure civilization, let alone the computers we are using.
To comment that “it is not nature’s goal for us to find happiness, peace of mind etc” you are dreaming up a personality for nature – or substituting the word nature for some loopy sadistic god.
Its not about anything wanting anything – its about what works and what doesn’t – about a system that can perpetuate itself or be replaced with one that does.
I found your comment to be really incongruous with your usual thoughtful and scientific approach.
You claimed to know “nature’s goal”, for Pete’s sake!! Since when are you a pagan priestess? Ha ha!
I honestly think your reaction may have been colored by your previous faith. In nature it is obvious that 10 kids will prevent prosperity for yourself and your genetic heritage – in certain religious systems having lots of kids is actually taught to be a major goal the faithful should have. That is for the survival of the religion (and to keep those in power at an advantage) – not the best interest of the individuals (because it does not benifit their offspring).
I’m sure that nature holds the solutions more often than the problems – the problems are acted upon by natural cycles more suited to survival. This is the point of natural selection.
Nature is as much a source of morality and happiness as any other thing you can imagine – since your brain itself is natural, and these concepts you mention do not exist outside of nature – this is the whole point of rejecting the supernatural for the real world. Nature is the real world – and we should interpret it with science, not emotional projections of our fears and desires.
May 13th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
RE: the cheating ninjas – sounds like a really poorly written cartoon, with a pretty questionable philosophy.
Here is an old story that teaches the opposite lesson of Blake’s ninja cartoon:
A king had no heir so he set about to create a system to choose the next ruler of his kingdom. He was a wise king – so the contest was open to boys and girls and focused on children because they had much to learn before taking the throne. Each child was given a seed – and the child that could grow the best plant from their seed would win. After the designated time – all of the children stood in a line to be evaluated with their plants – plants of all shapes and sizes were in the hands of all the children but towards the end of the line a child stood with still only a seed. The seed wouldn’t grow for him. When his turn came to come before the king – he went in feeling shame – but was soon heralded as the next king! All the seeds had been boiled before they were handed out – the only child worthy of the throne was the one who was willing to admit apparent failure.
May 14th, 2006 @ 5:20 am
What about adaptability? Human beings are incredibly resiliant . You fail to see obvious variables and consider them in your argument.I don’t have a lot of time now ,but I’ll return early next week and continue . Happy Mother’s day Noell!
May 14th, 2006 @ 11:16 am
I’m glad to see some discussion here! At first I was worried there wouldn’t be much, but now some of you are obviously forcing me to look in new directions.
Ron–My viewpoint about nature had nothing whatsoever to do with my religious background. My viewpoint came from my (limited) studies in evolutionary psychology. I think the difference between my point and yours is that I was hyperfocusing on inner drives toward competition, social ladders, sibling rivalry,sexual drive, etc.
I was not thinking in terms of nature as a whole, like you. Perhaps once we clarify what exactly what we are referring to when we speak of nature (because as you said, nature is all there is) we will have a better understanding. In terms of the limited scope of the aspect of nature I was referring to, I think my point still stands.
Since you are referring to nature in a different way from myself, why don’t you share some specific examples? I want to see how it fits with my original discussion of deciding what is moral and what isn’t. Because I think it is exactly where I was going when I spoke of the question, “If everyone were to do such and such under comparable circumstances, would it contribute to overall happiness and well-being in the world?”
Also, Ron, I would hope that you recognize the writing tool of personification. I know nature is not a being, as in God. You being an artist, I am surprised you read it that way. But I guess your idea that religion colored my thinking lead you to that conclusion.
BTW, I like that story of the king.
May 14th, 2006 @ 11:17 am
Fran–I need examples. I hope you come back and specify because I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of the discussion here. I know you were short on time.
May 15th, 2006 @ 9:18 am
happy moms day!
May 15th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Great points about how to help young children differentiate between right and wrong.
If you haven’t already read it, I thought Michael Shermer’s book “Science of Good and Evil” was an excellent discussion of the evolution of morality.
May 15th, 2006 @ 11:24 am
To start with I will feel less pain when you stop trying to tear down Christmas trees and crosses.
Ross
May 15th, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Great article! Makes sense.
I’m a ‘leaver’ (instead of a ‘believer’) and married an atheist about two yrs ago. We have a 6 yr old and we’re dealing with these issues, as well. I see my son as innately thoughtful, compassionate and caring of others. I want to keep that beautiful side of him intact as we move through this world, without bringing religion into it.
BTW, Avatar rocks!
- naydog (Renay)
May 15th, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
A secular system for morality, though well-intentioned is equally preposterous and self-defeating as a secular system of religion (which, btw, seems to be the latest fad: you know the “God Without Religion” crap). Later, I’ll explain in further detail by providing a link to an essay I have been inspired to write on the subject.
For now suffice it to say that “morality” is a term that theists fully own. For us to use it is like democrats talking about the need for more “taxes” instead of the need for more services (taxes being simply a concommitent of that goal). Likewise we need more morality like we need hole in the head. When we try to claim that the term applies to us, too, we buy straight into the opposition frame, right where they want us. Then we try to argue from within it that it isn’t valid in the first place. A horrible, self-contradicting self-defeating strategy.
On the other hand, if we want to talk about a system for fair and just laws, sustainable economic practices, equitable access to government… that has nothing to do with morality of any stripe, it is pure self-interest, more scientific than philosophical and another thing altogether. If some kind of ethical system results as a concommitent, it should be of only of passing interest.
Bottom-line: Morality constrains and represses. Civil liberties free and empower. We should have none of the former.
May 15th, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Hifi–So do you think we should only use the term “ethics” instead of “morality”?
I’m curious: Why do you only think of this subject in terms of laws? What about personal conduct in our relationships with others, and most especially, with our children?
Do you not think we should guide with a system to analyze how their actions affect others? How their place in the world makes its mark? I call this morality. I realize it has religious connotations, or connotations of right and wrong. I realize that some secularists hate the notion of right and wrong.
I think it is dangerous to say that there are not a handful of things that are wrong, evil, bad. A few examples: violence against children, rape, enslavement of others.
Now, I know there are a few here who will leap to my Mormon background and claim I am still within its brainwashing influence. Don’t even go there. I am not the only secularist with these views. For starters, try the author ot The End Of Faith.
Back to Hifi: What are your thoughts on this? Is your problem with the word, “Morality”? Or with the idea of some things being wrong? Or both?
What if I clarify by saying we don’t have to teach a long list of do’s and don’t’s (my initial point in my article). We just need to give our children a system for analyzing their actions; that system being to ask how their actions affect the world, how they afffects others’ pain and happiness. Do you disagree?
NOTE TO ALL: I hope I am communicating that I WANT to hear from everyone who disagrees with me on this subject. It is an important topic to me, one which I may be speaking on at an upcoming conference, and I need this kind of feedback. Keep your thoughts coming, whether you agree with all, some, or none of the points being made here.
May 15th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
mothergoosemouse–thanks for the tip! I have read others of Shermer’s books and the one you mentioned is on my wish list. I didn’t realize it was a related topic, so I will definitely push it up on my list!
Ross–you are hysterical! Too bad you are only one in a world of various religions. BTW, I’m with you on the trees.
May 15th, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
I found the post to the HNN to be a little confusing in that it seemed backwards to the way I was taught Act and Rule Utilitarianism. I was under the impression that each act is evaluated for its benefit on society under act utilitarianism and each act was evaluated against a rule that was predetermined to benefit society in rule utilitarianism. So if I were to ask the question Noell posed each time I was trying to make an ethical decision, isn’t that just a way to evaluate the benefit to society and is thus act utilitarianism?
If we ignore the label and just consider the question, it is, of course, classic utilitarianism and thus inherits all the pros and cons that go with that school of thought. The obvious criticism is that someone may not have any idea what the long or short term consequences of the possible alternatives would be. This problem may be especially an issue with a child that doesn’t have the experience or training to evaluate the question.
Another classic objection is the personal integrity objection. The celebrated anthropologist enters a small village. 21 randomly chosen people are lined against a wall in front of a firing squad to be killed in reprisal for a recent rebel attack. Because of the celebrity status of the anthropologist he is offered the “opportunity†to kill one of the rebels. If he accepts and kills one, the other 20 will be released. How does he deal with his personal integrity? This little example can be made more complex but you get the idea.
There are several other classic “problems†with utilitarianism that have names like the no-rest problem, the absurd implication problem, the justice problem and the publicity problem. I fully recognize that there are also classic rebuttals to each “problemâ€.
Despite all the above, I would judge the question to be a pretty good one that may stand the test of time for any child from the age of about 6-8. It has the appearance of being simple (although it is far from it) and accomplishes at least three things. It is a start at making them philosophically aware. It starts to give them practice to hone their skills at making decisions of any kind. It may make them wonder where they are going to go to get some of the answers.
For what it is worth, I related the little story about cheating and the surgeons that operated on “mommy†to a couple of mothers at a Mother’s Day brunch. The reactions could be summarized as, “For Pete’s sake, leave the guy alone and let him enjoy the “Power Rangers†show.†You can’t win them all.
May 16th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
I would very much appreciate comments on my article, What About Morality?
The way I see it there are two separate questions to be dealt with here: 1) How to counter the “amoral atheist” strawman strategy of the political right. 2) On what basis to make our own decisions and how to recommend that to our children.
Noell- For us to use either the term or the concept, “morality”, is to pick up a grenade the religious have thrown at us. Believe me, they love to see us go at it. We can only lose when we validate their frame of reference. (”When was the last time you hit your wife, sir?”)
I liked how in your article you drew out the improbability of their being any universal morals the real world. So, I was surpised by your question about rape, abuse, slavery… BTW, all standard human practice until very recently. Before I can answer further I will need you to define “evil” and “bad”, please.
In the real world, there is no generic right thing to do… because every circumstance has properties unique to it alone. This is the flaw in all the little philosophical conundrums, that is, in addition to their being presented outside of a full context (e.g., Who are the natives rebelling against and why? What is the relationship between the anthropolgist’s nation and his host country? Is this a standard offer in executions? Can the executioner’s promise be trusted? Etc. etc.)
And there are always trade-offs: should we have sacrificed high civilization – and our atheism – by refusing to build empire on the back of slaves, exploited peoples and oil?
I think the best thing we can offer children is to provide them with a broad education critical thinking skills. No one really needs to be told to act in their own self-interest. Beyond utilitarianism, it is what life does – it is the very definition of life. (Although, this does explain the need to posit heaven when inducing people to act against their own interests in this world.)
More detail in my article.
May 16th, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Hifi – Noell doesn’t imply in her article the improbability of universal morals in the real world. She is simply presenting a system for making moral decisions.
Why are you surprised that she offers up the examples of violence against children, rape, and slavery as “bad” things? Is this a controversial stance? It would take a pretty convoluted hypothetical situation to demonstrate a case where rape is a good thing. In fact, aren’t abuse, rape, and slavery basically evil by definition?
Also, you say that “theists fully own” the word morality. But morality concerns how we act out of respect for the happiness and suffering other human beings. You’re giving up on our right to talk about morality?! Morality and ethics are too important. We can’t and shouldn’t reliquish the semantics on this.
I also have trouble with your claim that our laws should be based on pure self-interest. For example, I can support laws that bring about civil rights for others even when they don’t directly affect me. Is there any room for empathy?
I am in support of your statements about critical thinking and analysis and “bringing everything to bear that we know about the world and ourselves.”
Noell – You said “some secularists hate the notion of right and wrong.” Maybe that comes from the way theists portray secularists? I’ve never heard anyone say that they hate even the notion of right and wrong.
May 17th, 2006 @ 1:09 am
Dudley – I quote from Noell’s article, “rules for moral choices are arbitrary and vary with each religion”. And it’s not that her list of “evils” are controversial, that gives them to much credit, it’s that they are arbitrary rules. Your argument to the contrary is the tautology that “rape is evil and evil is rape”?
What’s most interesting in Noelle’s list to me is that these are pure examples of the morals of the modern in-group. There were no laws against any of them, anywhere in the world until very, very recently, and then only in industrialized countries. And as for applying equally to out-groups…not even on the radar of most anyone you will meet.
For example: Are you as outraged about in-group rape, abuse and slavery as that your Nikes are the result of the sweatshop labor of children and women? Really, who needs slaves when you can economically coerce whole nations into offering up their own people in servitude, while funneling their natural resources into their leaders pockets and ours? Are imperialist military solutions, that don’t just rape women but slowly starve them with sanctions or simply blow them and their children to smithereens, controversial to you? Do you care that the paper bags you bring your loot home in are a product of deforestation? Or that the global warming that results from driving your car and jetting to your vacation destination will result in the misery and deaths of millions? You don’t really think you worked so hard or are so smart that that you earned every bit of this good life of yours here without being complicit in the rape, abuse and slavery of a large part of the world? Can’t sleep at night over it? Nah, didn’t think so.
Isn’t it amazing that these exponentially more pervasive and deadly injuries don’t ever appear on anyone’s list of universal evils?
Dudley, sorry for the rant, I understand your good-intentions, but the curses of morality and its twin, xeno-obliviousness are as blind as they are ruthless. I get pretty riled about it. Primarily because it is antithetical to real self-interest, deeply and widely extrapolated. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric: working for civil rights for others is just working for civil rights! If theirs go, yours are next. An educated, critical thinker is aware of that. No special empathetic sense required.
This is in no way about semantics, it is about not being tricked into a losing frame. By analogy, do you think a liberal is going to get anywhere claiming they are for more taxes? How about if they say they are for fewer taxes? Either way, wouldn’t conservatives be delighted? However, if the liberal says he/she is for more services… ah, now you’ve got a contest. Taxes are a bogeyman when disconnected from their purpose.
Morality is used against us in much the same way. When you are asked are you religious? Are you moral? If you are an atheist and you answer both of these questions, yes or no, we all lose. Like taxes morality is a frame, an abstraction disconnected from its purpose: to support group survival. As such it is readily becomes a means manipulation, quickly distorting into various forms of “only live to serve your master (boss, superior, priest, king)”. Morality isn’t our issue; it is theirs. Our issues are respect for our beliefs, freedom from having the beliefs of others forced on us and our kids and a system blind enough to belief that it never even comes up when we try to run for office.
Apart from that, the only interest I have in “evil” is whether or not your freedoms start to interfere with mine and, by extension of myself, with the freedoms of anyone else. Whether I care how someone else feels, or not, it is irrelevant to my actions to ensure that they are as protected as I am. It is not altruism or even empathy. It is survival for me and my children.
May 17th, 2006 @ 2:34 am
“Nothing is neither right nor wrong, but thinking makes it so.”
May 17th, 2006 @ 4:06 am
In a world full of hate and destruction religious oppression reigns supreme. It then becomes a question of situational ethics or moral absolutes . People are slaughtered and cities destroyed in the name of false gods who justify the taking of life and limb. However , when you look at the real meaning behind it all the people who order such devastation are in need of a quick fix because they are violating the very moral absolutes they were raised to honor and protect .It’s a catch 22 situation where nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong. Validation comes in many forms. For instance , gambling is now accepted because it helps the senior citizens in Pennsylvania ,whereas in years past it was considered taboo because it deprived hungry families of nutrition when dad came home without the bacon. No one claims the bad, only the good. Sounds like that fake god again doesn’t it ? There is always a need for a scapegoat .
Tickle , Tickle I say, let’s pee on his leg and tell him its raining. Have a good day everyone !!
May 17th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Hifi – I see. Your moral viewpoint here fits with what you’ve said before on previous posts.
Let me clarify first, from Noell’s article: “rules for moral choices are arbitrary and vary with each religion”
This doesn’t say that moral rules are wrong, but it does show us that religion, for all of its arbitrariness, is not a particularly reliable place to get our moral education.
But, just because religion is unreliable — sometimes teaching morals well, sometimes not so well, and sometimes just plain goofy — that doesn’t mean we should just chuck the whole concept of morality. Morality and ethics are valid and important concepts, and it’s good that Noell is trying to help parents develop ways to teach their children.
I concede the point that child abuse, rape, and slavery are evil by definition is a tautology. But I disagree that the evilness of these examples is an “arbitrary rule.” It’s not arbitrary that today these things are considered evil. Morality is an area that is amenable to progress, much like science. The fact that slavery is no longer practiced in the U.S. is progress that did not come easily. It’s as if you are blaming Newton in the 17th century for not knowing about special relativity and thus labeling all physics as arbitrary.
It’s interesting that you don’t believe empathy plays a role in any of this. Empathy seems to be the most basic source of morality. So, you believe that empathy is okay, but unnecessary if you have sufficient critical thinking?
I don’t know how others feel, but giving up the right to talk about morality is too high a price to pay. Morality is what gives us our humanity. You may have a point about the political/semantic aspect with respect to taxes, for example. But I’m not willing to give up the important things. Are you going to let them have morality, then marriage, then patriotism, etc…? Maybe eventually they’ll have our “children”!! You can have the word children, just let me have my next-generational sex-produced offspring!! =) I’m mostly kidding about that, but do you see my point?
There’s much in your article I agree with, but there are some basic points that I don’t follow yet.
May 17th, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
I’ve been wanting to step back into the dialogue here, but I haven’t, and still don’t, had a free moment. Let me just say that Dudley is exactly on track with me. He’s practically speaking for me.
There are a few more things I want to add, and hopefully I’ll have time later.
Hifi, you have taken this topic to some angles and twists that I had not considered. That is exactly what I was hoping for. I think you made points that are similar to some Gregg 100 has tried to make with me, but in comments and in a personal email. I like the challenge and I’ve been thinking about it all this time.
It’s an interesting discussion!!!
BTW, Dudley, I a laughing so hard at your alternative name-choice for “children.” I just have to repeat it: “next-generational sex-produced offspring.” Love it!
May 17th, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Everytime we went to the catholic mass as kids we used to have to bring the newsletter home because , they said (our caretakers ), they wanted us to verify we had been to church, but the real reason was they wanted to see their names and how much they had donated the previous week. The letter also included a list of dos and don’t’s , things that were morally acceptable ,like what movies to watch, or books to read etc. Now I was pretty young but even at that point in my life very skeptical. Today there is another scandalous movie out that is blasphemous to pretend god. “The Davinci Code” It is morally reprehensible because the catholic church says so. They don’t want to be challenged in any way. Why are they concerned ? If they really have faith that there is a god why do they care one diddly if others don’t believe there is one . If they can’t oppress the population and aren’t able to turn it inside out they have no control. Magic and deception is their modus operandi. We used to have a saying when we were kids they seems to fit here . ” If you can’t dazzle them with brillance at least baffle them with bullshit.
May 17th, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Like I said, handling politics is one thing. That is what most of the discussion here has ranged around. Whether our kids have it in them to make good choices is another (define “good”, though).
If you don’t mind, I would like you to read through the three pages I have written up on character education. which criticizes the religious conservative approach and offers solutions without the “dazzle” (as fran, says). There are extensive links with summaries, which are essential reading for any parent wondering about character (aka “morality”).
Please note the part that discusses how locating behavioral problems in individuals is a conservative political and fundamentalist Christian assumption (original sin as political conclusion) – one that research does not bear out. It is truly sad that liberals rallying behind character education only goes to assure everyone that the fundamentalist theocrats must be right. If there is original sin, then the blame is on people who don’t follow the rules – not the system that the rules were created to reinforce.
This is the reframe liberals miss: to shift the emphasis to fixing the system, not the person. For instance, are the drug offenders that fill 60% of our prisons the primary exemplifier of bad morals? Yes, siree. Blatant self-gratification and the big drug companies (with drugs that do the same things and push to an equal number of abusers) don’t make a dime! 0.7% of the entire American population is in prison. That is more than in any country in the world. These miscreants were apparently just born that way (mostly black, btw) and on top of that they weren’t given the right rule book to follow. Really?
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-01.htm
I’d like to know how many of you agree with me that there is nothing wrong with our kids – they will behave exactly as the most moral of us when put in an unfair position in the system.
May 17th, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
After considerable study, I THINK I have most of the main points identified in your article. I would like to list them to make sure, but I am going to list them out of the order in which they were presented.
1. The goal of the individual is to act in one’s self interest and to be happy and successful in life and family.
2. To guide the actions of that individual in pursuing that goal, there could be moral guidelines and/or laws.
3. Moral guidelines are a religious construct that has no place in a purely secular society. As such, secularists should not be entrapped into attempting to deal with the obvious paradox of a religious semantic in a nonreligious context. There is little chance of developing universal moral guidelines and decisions are highly dependent upon the circumstances.
4. An alternative is a voluminous system of laws within a constitutional republic.
5. Such a system of laws would be established by experience and rational thought processes which in-turn requires a population that
A. needs a broad and deep education
B. needs to be politically active in pursuing secular, relative, scientific, empathetic, long-term results to assure/expand civil liberties and beneficial conduct of interactions in daily lives.
6. Such a society will be superior in some aspects of standards of living as evidenced by Japan, Scandanavian counties and France.
Under the assumption that the above is reasonably close, I would like to make the following comments.
I believe your philosophy could be aligned with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism with few, if any adjustments. It is well summarized and presented in Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Randâ€. They both appear to be highly secular, identify rational reason as the primary virtue, promote “self interest†(Rand establishes a carefully defined term and context) and declare happiness as the purpose in life.
For years I have wondered about the Ayn Rand philosophy of Objectivism. I liked a lot of the very logical development (probably the engineer in me) but have always felt there was something wrong about the conclusions that are derived. I have read many critiques by other philosophers and they seem to conclude some of the same things but never quite pin down where things go wrong. The common thread through most of the critiques I have seen tend to dismiss the philosophy as a modified form of Hedonism because of the major emphasis on “selfishnessâ€. Note that Ayn Rand goes to great length to very carefully define and develop her exact definition of the term and its implications and I agree with some of the development. However, during my morning walk (when I do my heavy thinking) I may have found the key to my objections.
I think the Rand position that life is the ultimate source or basis from which all values are derived, should be replaced with the position that wisdom is the ultimate basis from which all values should be derived. Of course, wisdom requires life and those things which support life are of value but a world in which all the human population is functioning on a self interest level trying to maximize personal happiness does not appear to be a desirable state. On a summary basis then, those things of value contribute to the retention and advancement of wisdom. I believe this view has the potential for modifying the value system such that the good of the human species now becomes a fully vested part of the philosophy as opposed to what I interpret as a secondary effect that is of interest only to the extent it benefits the individual and is almost in conflict with Rand’s very strong objection to any form of altruism. Here again, her definition of altruism is very specific and uniquely defined for purposes of her philosophy. Science would clearly play a major role in such a philosophy.
One thing that you identified that is not emphasized in the books on Rand’s philosophy is the need for massive improvements in education and a parallel development of skills in critical/rational thinking. I whole heartedly agree and I support the approach you identified wherein the child is transitioned from a simplified rule based system to one of depending on critical thinking skills as enabled by expanded education and experience.
With wisdom as a primary in the establishment of values, clearly life-long learning becomes an ethical demand both at the individual and societal levels. I will cheat and point you to my own rarely read blog entry entitled “A New Learning Ethic†dated Thursday, March 16, 2006.
May 17th, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
I spent 6 months on Rancho Rajneesh in Oregon with Baghwan Rajneesh, He advocated free sex,but not in the way the media portrayed it. He essentially theorized that religion repressed sexual expression so much that that was the reason for skyrocketing crime and psychological diseases in addition to countless other social ills. He said that it is one of the most gratifying experiences a human being can encounter yet religion appoints itself the morality czar and literally tells people when they can or cannot become intimate with each other.They dictate brainwashed morality behind the doctrines of sex and religious supernaturalism. They forbid what is a natural act by making it feel dirty and confusing for some people, It often manifests itself in the same way later in life. He also maintained that they classify people in order to maintain the status quo, and that people in a democracy were rewarded with riches beyond dreams to play along with the fantasy( think Robertson or Falwell ) so that more people could be controlled therefor certain segments of society are looked upon as ” bad ” and stigmatized . At times I wondered about bahgwan’s sanity and thought that perhaps he was a bit paranoid but he did utilize science and made things livable where they previously were thought to have been totally uninhabitable. Based on the theoretical concepts of educated people from all walks of life . I enjoyed myself there and walked away a much better person. Bravo to Rajneeshies everywhere.Bravo Bahgwan
May 18th, 2006 @ 8:20 am
I agree more with HiFi and Greg100 – but maybe these are discussions of prescribed conduct to adults when what Noell wants to address is the problem of how to present rules of conduct to children?
I ultimately don’t feel that:
“If everyone were to do such and such under comparable circumstances, would it contribute to overall happiness and well-being in the world?â€
cuts the mustard – because I don’t think that people are often capable of recognizing and defining ‘comparable circumstances’, which is necessary for the system to work.
Its mean to shove a kid on the playground – is it mean that the clothes you are wearing were created by the hands of children who never get to play on playgrounds? Are we evil for buying clothes?
We live on land acquired by the commission of genocide. Are we evil?
Our industry is founded on slavery (both historically and in current economic circumstance) – does that make our economy evil?
Our produce is picked by people who die young from the pesticides and make far less than the minimum wage – is our food evil?
Evil and good are abstractions. There is no actual evil or good.
If our kids were to learn of the ‘moral’ conflict that should occur in the first half hour of each day – putting on clothes made by slaves their age – drinking a cup of milk from a feeling captive who has its babies medically removed over and over again each year – eating a piece of fruit picked by a mother who will die at age 45 and who is more likely to have deformed children of her own due to the chemicals the food was treated with – walking out onto a manicured lawn that is the product of chemicals that increase infertility, cancer and poison our water – in a yard that was once part of the land lived on by a population of peoples who lived sustainably and were executed as godless savages because of it – travel to school in a vehicle dispite the fact that two people die in car accidents every minute of every day, knowing that said vehicles produce exhaust that will eventually pressure cook life on earth (as we know it) if they fail to adapt in time – – it seems like our kids wouldn’t be off to a very happy start to their day.
Also – your surgeon may well have cheated on tests – and may have had good personal reasons for doing so, say – if the test was unnecessary and poorly constructed by even the teacher’s standards, but the test was put in place by a bureaucracy intent on having its own approaches standardized to save the owners of their company some money.
My father’s doctor told him to have open heart surgery last year for a condition that has entirely cleared with some dietary change – my dad nearly didn’t get the second opinion that may have saved his life. Its hard to know which doctor was more prone to cheating on tests – - I would be willing to bet the one that opted for surgery was playing entirely by the book from his perspective.
Childhood issues may not always translate to adult situations.
Learning the difference is a really good topic – I can’t imagine raising my daughter without some notion of ‘right and wrong’ used in her early years, to make some grays into black and white while she gets her bearings in this world. Mental training wheels. How to do this – while at the same time preparing her for adulthood where there are no blacks and whites – is the challenge.
May 18th, 2006 @ 11:13 am
I remember when I was first starting out in life and I had a job in a department store . I was well liked and handled a men’s department quite effectively. I grasped the sales concepts and pretty much did what was expected of me. A co-worker of mine saw this and I guess for some reason became increasingly jealous of my relationship with upper management . He would ask me what I thought of this and that and I would respond to him in kind . It wasn’t long before our supervisor would come by and I would give him an idea and he’d say hmmmm well so and so had a very similar take on that( as though it was “his” original thought) . Isn’t that something. He was plaglarizing my ideas. I didn’t want to appear flimsy so I never said anything because I knew it wasn’t something I wanted to do with the rest of my life . Morally , was that reprehensible on my fellow workers part ? Or am I just being a whiner? (ron)
May 18th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Gregg100 – that was quite a summary. Thank you for taking so much time to consider my arguments.
Ayn Rand had a lot right, expecially, her contempt for religion’s effect on the ability of people to reason. Where she went wrong is in falling in with libertarian free marketers. Captialism can be neither efficient nor beneficial without serious federal regulation to ensure that competition thrives. Healthy competition also requires educational and economic opportunities for everyone. Capitalist systems stagnated by monopolies are just as inefficient as centralized communist ones. The response to both is popular revolution in order to arrive back at a balance between aquisition and access. (Probably not the appropriate blog to continue this discussion. But I’ve seen people get let astray by the philosophical aspects of Objectivism only to find themselves in bed with social-Darwinist libertarians.)
May 18th, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Hey, Ron, congratulations on your dad’s improving condition.
The situation of the two doctors, though, did not require cheating on tests. The first doctor who recommended the surgery was not immoral unless he KNEW your dad didn’t need it. Both doctors probably did their best with the information they had.
But when it comes to the test, based on my system, I come to the conclusion that it is not moral to go along with a corrupt system. In other words, dishonesty may be the right choice under certain circumstances. The Holocaust and the Underground Railroad come to mind. But this is an example Situational Ethics, which I am a proponent of. It is not an example of Moral Relativism, which I am an opponent of because it says nothing is right or wrong(I am also NOT a Moral Absolutist). We must acknowledge that it is wrong to cause someone unnecessary pain. This is what my whole system or morality revolves around.
The question: what would happen if everyone were to do such in such UNDER SIMILIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. That leaves room for Situational Ethics.
Ok, Hifi, Gregg 100, and Ron: You are all in agreement, at least for the most part. I am sorry to say that you have also gone off-track from my point. You are assuming some things unnecessarily. For example, you feel the need to throw “right and wrong” out the window just because there are circumstances where we just can’t make the right choice.
This is too much for me to cover here in the comments. I am working on an entirely new entry to show you what I mean.
May 18th, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Fran–was your friendly knowingly or intentionally causing your pain?
May 19th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Fran -
I can’t tell if the (ron) you added to your post was intended to elicit an answer from me, or call me a whiner!
I’ll assume the former – because I can’t see a connection with your post and the latter. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding something.
The workplace is a pretty harsh jungle of social Darwinism!
I don’t think that your freely given intellectual property (especially something as intangible as undocumented ideas) would be considered protected under the circumstances you describe. That other guy is just somebody you don’t want to share ideas that you value with. Defending ideas that are your own doesn’t strike me as a flimsy stance – if you were offended it would probably have been useful to you to be direct with them about it.
I’m increasingly having a hard time determining if ‘morality’ is an idea I can subscribe to – some of the other posts (and their links) have made convincing arguments against its relevance for me. I’m glad to have been introduced to some new schools of thought.
May 19th, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
[...] Have you been following the on-going discussion in my earlier post, A System For Morality? It’s good to know we have some very educated and thoughtful readers here. [...]
May 19th, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
“We must acknowledge that it is wrong to cause someone unnecessary pain. This is what my whole system or morality revolves around.” nh
This requires that people agree to a definition of ‘necessary’ – and maybe even ‘pain’. The full idea requires that people agree on sets of ’similar circumstances’ – assuming that identical circumstance is understood to be impossible. If these definitions could be tightened up somehow – I may be more on board.
The method of transporting the vaccination for smallpox (which amounted to the puss in the sores of people infected with cowpox) overseas before refrigeration was to keep a stock of orphans infected as a ship would cross the sea – the cycle of the cowpox could be kept viable in these human hosts, who were often tied to prevent their scratching the sores (and losing the potential vaccine).
I guess that a paid troupe of individuals could have done the job – making it more ethical by today’s standards – but I think these unsung heroes were also necessary victims in the culture they lived in.
Does this meet the definition of a corrupt system by your standard?
Is this evil, as it certainly pains (tortures, really) the children used in the system (it may have been a necessity to use children too – I can’t remember if that was the case). It also inoculated a nation against a disease that would otherwise have wiped them out.
I’ll shut up now – you already said you’d carry it over to a new entry.
May 19th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Ron–that is the most compelling example so far. Yes, to me, that is an evil. One question is whether or not that was really, truly the only way to transport the vaccine or just the easiest way, the most economic way, etc. The other question is whether the alternative (not carrying the vaccine over) would have had as devastating effects as we think. Sure, the possibility of our non-existence (modern Americans) is devastating to US personally, but who knows how the world may have turned out if they allowed Small Pox to annihialate us.
Since we cannot predict all the possibilities of of various events when we look back to the past, I feel it is a moot point. We just need to do our best with what we know and have in the present.
Gregg100–You know more about Utilitarianism than I do. I do not know why Wright’s description of “Rule” and “Act” is different than how you learned it. I should probably study the subject more!
May 23rd, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Noell, Let me quote the definition of rule utilitarianism from my old text “Rule Utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative.” An example of such a rule would be “Keep your promises.” It is a predetermined rule that acts as guidance. In a specific instance, a person may chose to violate the general rule and thus use act utilitarianism.
I interpreted the HNN article such that each time a person encountered an ethical question, they must ask themselves the consequences of an action if it were to be converted into a long term rule. To me that fits the definition of act utilitarianism. I quote, “Act utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any alternative.” Both quotes are from “Ethics – Discovering Right and Wrong” by Louis P. Pojman Dr. Pojman is a Fulbright, Rockefeller and Danforth fellowship scholar.
June 5th, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Hello
I haven’t read all of the posts on this page, so my apologies if this question has already been asked/answered.
“The objective of all of morality is to decrease overall existing pain in the world and to increase overall happiness.” Your source for this statement?
June 5th, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Hi, Dan. That is my statement. In MY opinion that should be the basis for morality assuming the premise that there is no God or an ultimate transcendent source of good, such as a god. Someone who believes in God, such as a Christian, would disagree with that statement.
So I was NOT trying to say that that is the objective for all moral systems (which I guess you are implying by asking for a source). I was trying to say that is MY objective, and an abjective that makes sense to me as a secular humanist. It is the objective I would like to see.
I cannot claim this idea for my own, though. As I mentioned in my article, Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal, explained that this was John Stuart Mill’s philosophy on morality, and one to which Charles Darwin subscribed.
Gregg100-thanks for the info. I’ll have to consider changing that part of my article if I republish it on ClubMom or somewhere else.
June 12th, 2006 @ 11:55 am
Hello Noell
I’ve had some time to read some of the earlier posts. I’m interested in the idea that “nature is all there is”. [I'm thinking, nature = the physical world] If I understand post #8 correctly, this is a position you hold.
I see two, somewhat different, implications:
1) the universe, as a whole, quite likely produces a consciousness; something that might be called “a god”
2) there is no meaning or value in life, other than what a particular individual attaches to it. And related: concepts of good and evil must be relative to the individual.
So, would you be interested in a conversation in that direction?
(Disclosure, if it matters: I hold a Christian worldview.)
June 12th, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Dan-You are accurate to sum up my position that “nature is all there is.” I am a strict materialist.
But when we look at the two implications you listed, I do not subscribe to either of them. The reason is that I am aware of a third implication. In the course of this discussion I have discovered that the third implication is not well-known or well understood.
The fact that I have founded my views on this third missing implication is the reason that there has been some confusion at what appears to be contradictions in my view of morality.
So yes, I absolutely would like to begin a conversation in that direction, especially since it is the foundation for the morality discussion that seems to have no end in sight.
I will begin a new blog post on this topic. Be patient, because there are at least three other topics I need to post on and I need to decide which order to post them in. It could take up to four entries before I get to this topic, or I may push it up on priority because it is so foundational. (Is foundational a word? Anyone?).
Thanks for the request to clarify this.
And thanks for the disclosure! It usually helps to know what are the premises and perspectives of the person I am having a discussion with.
June 12th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Noell – I’m looking forward to your future posts, on whatever subject. Of course, my thinking may change at any time, and I assume the same freedom for you.
Peace
June 12th, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Oh, boy, if there is anything I have learned in the last five years is that I could be wrong and I could change my mind on anything.
Thanks for being such a respectful Christian player on AgnosticMom.
June 14th, 2006 @ 6:45 am
[...] Perhaps “arbitrary” was the wrong word to use when I wrote last month’s article for the Humanist Network News. [...]