Thanks for being such a respectful Christian player on AgnosticMom.

Peace

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?”
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.

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 Rand”. 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 “selfishness”. 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 “problem”.

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.

Ross–you are hysterical! Too bad you are only one in a world of various religions. BTW, I’m with you on the trees.

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.

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.

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)

Ross

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.