Breaking It Down
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.
We’ve gone into some more complicated specifics and I feel I the need to break my system down into its smallest parts. Please excuse the nature of this post as it is more of a brainstorm than a concise article.
I think there is some confusion between what I am trying to say and what I am NOT trying to say. Maybe I can clear it up.
What do I mean when I refer to right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral? And what about that extreme word, “evil?”
Wrong: Causing another person unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Bad: Causing another person unneccessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Evil: Causing another person an excruciating and horrific amount of unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Immoral: Knowing you are causing another person unnecessary pain or increasing the amount of pain and suffering in the world. And doing it anyway when you have a choice to do otherwise.
Right, Good, and Moral: The opposite of the above.
I did NOT say anything about violating the laws of a diety, nor did I say anything about a universal “force” of good. I don’t believe in either one. Morality comes from our ability to perceive, reason, analyze and be aware of others.
In the tradition of Existentialism and materialistic thought, it all breaks down to this:
We exist.
We can have pain and suffering. We can have happiness, peace, and joy.
We have the capacity for empathy: we are aware of others’ pain and suffering.
Morality and ethics are about experiencing happiness in ways that do not unnecessarily add pain to the world or others.
I am NOT saying that we have the ability to do this perfectly. I am not saying that there are not times when it is impossible. I am not saying that life is simple and without tricky dilemmas. The system is still the most reliable.
We need to nurture empathy to be able to better recognize pain and suffering in others.
We need to nurture wisdom to better recognize HOW to avoid causing pain.
What else did I NOT say? I did not give a list of specific rules regarding what I think is right and wrong. Religion does that. There are major problems with trying to tell others what actions are right or wrong (what I call “Rules for Morality”):
1. Life is far too complex to reduce every varying situation into an absolute list. For example, sometimes it is moral to be dishonest (think Holocaust, the Underground Railroad). Therefore, dishonesty, in and of itself, is not bad.
2. Science continues to discover new facts, so we must always be open to reevaluating our understanding and assumptions. For example, do chickens feel pain when we kill them for food? Do their fellow siblings miss them when they are gone? If science can conclude that the answer to both questions is no (and that is my understanding, but I am not sure), then MAYBE it is not immoral to eat them. Unless we find that chickens are more like us than we thought. Well, then it might be moral to learn to use tofu!
3. Cause and Effect is too vast for us to accurately draw absolute conclusions. For example, Hifi and Ron talked about how our economic structure, and most everything that we buy, relies on the pain and suffering of others (for example, child slavery, but go read the comments of the above post to see the specifics).
It would seem like the moral thing to do would be to only buy organic and grow your own food, make your own material and clothing, abstain from driving cars, and a whole number of other things. At least this is what Hifi and Ron both hinted at. Perhaps in another post or comment I will explain why I think this action will cause greater pain and suffering, while also not fixing the situation. Maybe at some point I will explain why I think there is a more effective approach to changing the system, one that already seems to be pushing things in the right direction (albeit at a slow pace). And if that is so, then THAT would be the more appropriate choice. (I don’t want to get off on a tangent by delving into that here).
But maybe I am wrong on the moral dilemma of buying the products of child slaves. Once I share my understanding with you, maybe you can enlighten me on why I am wrong.
Does this exemplify why I am not trying to outline a list of specific rights and wrongs?
I do not believe in Moral Relativism. There is one principle that stands true and transcends all cultures and religions: It is immoral to cause unnecessary pain and suffering in the world. This is the one moral absolute that exists and this absolute is not relative. All others are just RULES for morals that could be wrong depending on the situations. This is why I am a proponent of Situational Ethics.
When evaluating the ethics or morality of a certain action, we do not need a handbook of right and wrong. We must individually measure it by the one absolute I have outlined: Does it cause unnecessary pain and suffering? You and I may come up with different answers. That is okay with me. We also may not always have the willpower, or even the ability, to choose that action we think is right. The important thing is the general direction we are going.
Okay, now that I have outlined my views in their most basic form, does this clarify the topic or muddle it? What are your thoughts now?
May 19th, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
Hifi–I finally read your article after writing this post. I think there are two major differences between us, but otherwise our views are remarkably similar (at least I was surprised at how similar when I read your article).
Mainly, I think we are working from different definitions. Once we get past the difference of definitions, do you agree that we have a very similar stance?
The other difference is in our approach. I tend to look for commonalities with the mainstream public so that I can build on that, changing definitions and paradigms gradually. Your approach is more about fighting for our rights now, and then once we’ve managed to earn them, for example, through the courts, mainstream paradigms will then shift naturally.
Therefore, I want to continue discussing morality by changing its meaning. You don’t. It’s interesting. I don’t know if either of us has a more effective approach or not. I just know that I have found some success with my approach so far (as I know you have with yours) and I don’t know if I want to change it. Maybe the diversity of approaches is good, anyway.
Now that I’ve broken down my own definitions, viewpoints, and paradigms in this post, what do you think?
I thought your article was excellent. Some points were completely new to me. I have a completely new reference through which to understand a lot of things. I plan to read the article again.
May 19th, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
Laws are passed everyday. Some are so trivial they aggravate the judges who have to rule on the credibility of such nonsense . Certain segments of society feel as though it is there duty to augment laws that the rest of us will be stuck with until we challenge the validity of such laws on appeal. Many times the segment of society that enacts the laws know darn well they will never stand the test of time in the legal system , but they get a charge out of it anyway. Pat Robertson is such a person. He will knowingly launch a movement knowing there is little chance for success . He does it because it’s popular with his constituancy. That has been the reasoning behind the conservative movement. Who cares about the rationale . We are desperate for power . Morality is a powerful political tool.
May 19th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Fran–they also do it to generate energy from the base. They do it to create a non-existent battle between good and evil. And they do it to get their constuency out to vote. Many may not have gone out to vote for Bush except that there were votes regarding marriage that brought them out.
May 19th, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
I’m going to try to simplify this whole discussion:
As a Humanist I actually look to Hillel’s formulation of the golden rule as a simple, one-line, catch-all for morality. As the story goes, a man went to Hillel and told him he would convert if Hillel told him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot. Hillel said:
“That which is despicable to you, do not do to others, that is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary..”
I like it, it’s simple, it’s sort of a passive golden rule (you don’t have to do good works, just don’t annoy anyone else).
It’s based on empathy.. a universal human trait that evolved to allow us to live together as social animals.
And if you have to explain your moral beliefs to someone, you can do it while you (or they) stand on one foot.
May 20th, 2006 @ 4:32 am
That’s always been my standard and it works well. What remains is yadda yadda yadda to me. Much ado about nothing!!
May 23rd, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Noell-
If your agenda is to change the meaning of the word “morality” for religious people, I cannot see that ever happening. I am curious about what your successes are. The Brights looked into an action like this and it went down in flames. It just doesn’t make sense to compete with these on their home field - not in the public arena. To claim that as an agnostic you can have morality, too, just proves them right - that we don’t deserve any respect.
I am afraid your basis for right and wrong is too limited to be realistic: “It is immoral to cause unnecessary pain and suffering in the world.” You see, right there you neglect to deal with 90% of the problem - the necessary pain and suffering. After all, what are local economic and armed conflicts all about? What are regional economic and military conflicts all about? (Hint: population and resources.) In all honesty, unless your plan includes population control and some kind of communist global resource distribution plan, I’m hard pressed to see it solving anything except making you feel better about yourself.
Beyond imperialism and the class stratification ills of the world, most human suffering is caused by natural plagues and catastrophes - warding those off is what ever gave any weight to ideas of good vs. evil. That is why “evil” is a term full of with supernatural association (synonyms - sinful and wicked). Now, unless you have some kind of priestly power you haven’t told us about to ward those off plagues, claiming naturalistic moral goodness we literally don’t have a prayer in the debate. Because religious people do have the magical solution. Prayer, talismans, idols, altars, totems, charms, blessings… what do think these signs of good are for? For one, religious morality is very much involved with keeping the natural under control. For another, all of these signs denote who is good - and by exclusion who is not.
And let’s not forget if morality is about anything, it is about under what circumstances who can and who cannot have sexual relations - the rights and responsibilities involved (e.g. pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, adultery, perversion, pornography, etc). These are the hot “moral issues” in the West most likely to end in an accusation of atheistic amorality. These topics are used by the political right to browbeat religious support and defame opponents. It is relevant that there is hardly any cross-cultural significance or definition to these issues. Next on the morality hit list might be who you can kill and who you cannot (hardly any cross-cultural agreement there either).
Curiously absent in the modern West, however, is any moral incrimination heard over property and personal rights vs. community needs. When there is, “atheist Communist”, is usually sufficient to derail it - but moral concepts like greed, charity, gluttony are rarely invoked. When is the last time you heard a moral controversy over amassing undeserved wealth?
——
I’d also like to put to rest this whole idea of some kind of universal foundation. As I have said before, the only universals are survival, reproduction and “everyone else is wrong. (If you’re following along, you’ll notice that these are the causes of suffering not only
Here are a couple of examples I’ve taken the time to deconstruct - I think they are what most people would expect we could use as “moral” benchmarks.
The Golden Rule. About the only principle you can find which is trumpeted by all of the varieties of character education (CE), this widely acclaimed moral homily is a wonderful example of the problem of contextual vacancy with the CE industry.
First, consider if the *reasons* for following the Golden Rule in any given situation are actually valid? For instance:
* What if the other person doesn’t also follow it?
* What if how you like things done to you is offensive in manner and result to others when done to them? (Ugly American syndrome is one example).
* What if more than one other is involved and their goals are in conflict?
* What if you both want things that will hurt you?
* Does following this principle lead to success, self-esteem, less abuse, less poverty, greater rights for all, a better environment?
* Which of the goals just listed does the Golden Rule achieve more effectively than alternatives: e.g., straight reciprocity (tit for tat); or the communist rule, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”; or plain old manipulation via marketing, selling, framing, half-truth and other widely regarded political and commercial means of manipulating others for one’s own and even for their own “benefit”?
One more. “Don’t kill” would seem to be a universal moral and not being a killer a universal moral good? Well… You mean, unless it is in self-defense or defense of another? Unless you are instructed to do so by the state (war)? Unless you are the police? Unless you are crazy? Unless you are under emotional duress? Unless the victim is: a witch, or was convicted of a capital crime, or has asked for euthanasia? Or is an animal or a plant, or an embryo or yourself? Unless, unless, unless… You see the problem and that is only within Western culture (i.e., what if you are an aborigine and it is a matter of initiation and honor to prove your self in war games - although any death must be compensated by half your family’s wealth - which everyone agrees is completely honorable)?
In fact, no such simple dictum against killing - especially as applies to the out-group - has ever been carried out in local practice without contradiction and, most especially, not in some abstract, global way.
——
As far as all this with regard to raising children without religion, please read what I have written about chararcter education (3 pages) on my site.
No one ever answered my previous question: Do you think their is something inherently wrong with your children - do they need moral education, or not? Look at it this way, if such a thing as morality is natural - not merely a conceit of religion or rulers - then children are fine as they are. They will cause suffering or not follow the local social rules equal to the most ethically astute of us placed in an equally unfair or demanding situation.
An interesting corollary of that would be that efforts to teach morality to children would work only to pervert their natural morality. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching: “The morality that can be told is not the natural morality.”
This isn’t a hypothetical issue. I have children and this is my current approach:
Theory - Enlightened self-interest: Critical thinking. Systems (wide context and deep repercussion). Evolution. Anthropology. Ecology. History. Physiology/Health/Nutrition.
This should empower them to make whatever choices they need to make for themselves and their world.
Practice, I use these little axioms: Make friends. Being a hypocrite will come back to you. Promote civil liberties. Question authority. Disregard victimless crimes. Conformity is easy and the internal/external rewards guaranteed, but meager. Following your dreams is hard and the internal/external rewards great, despite the risk.
Bottom-line: Never invoke an abstract “should”. Ignore all broad behavioral injunctions (something that in conventional codes of morality aborts all insight and possibilities). Children should be shown the plain reality of choices and the trade-offs – social, material and existential - incumbent in making them.
May 23rd, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
For fun, I have wrote up some practical definitions of morality.
Morality:
1. An obsolete, psuedo-metaphysical social construct - lacking scientific verifiability.
2. The cloak worn of hypocrites, who act selfishly, locally, and for the short-term, while wishing others to act in just the opposite manner where they are concerned.
3. A weapon of conservative elements in society used in the attempt to impose supernaturalism, authority and conformity on individuals within, to persecute non-conforming individuals within, and to demonize cultures without who have different sensibilities, social structures, histories and economies.
4. A loosely wielded, meaningless criticism of insufficiency employed by conservatives and theists to evoke a reaction in unconfident progressives and atheists in order to lure them into an untenable frame and trap - too often successfully inducing them into wasting their time and efforts, which otherwise might be applied more productively to extend civil liberties in government and support laws that would actually help their cause.
After all, “the kind, peaceful people died out long ago when the other guys came over and took their food and women without a fight”. This is according to my axiom of morality: “treat one’s own group with loving care, and exploit the bloody hell out of others.”
That sums up in a cute example the need for any humanistic “plan” to first address the in-group/out-group issues of local survival and reproduction, that pit human genetic and cultural groups against each other. Certainly, ridding the world of the religious haze that directly incites conflict while it works against seeing the situation clearly would help tremendously.
May 24th, 2006 @ 8:42 am
Without qualifying ‘unnecessary’, or ‘pain and suffering’ : it doesn’t work.
It DOES go in the right direction sometimes (probably more often than not), like you say, but as a rule - it doesn’t work.
Being alive increases the pain and suffering in the world (including - as an aside- the pain and suffering of physical birth most women of the world experience - maybe this is the ‘agnostic morality’ version of original sin?).
The methods we use to survive decrease the opportunities of others to survive - expend resources others want/need - making all of those born after or before us suffer similarly.
I’m just talking about walking about, breathing, eating and drinking - - all the other things we do that make life worse for others are just icing on the cake.
I think HiFi has got a clear-cut argument for a better system. I’d very much like to hear you address the specifics of his outline for teaching our children, because I can’t imagine a way in which your description of good and bad would be a preferable approach.
Ultimately, the description you provide does not approach a system for non-deist morality, it gives guidelines for rationalizing supernatural language.
I see think what you mean, though, and for many of our day to day situations - you describe a way to help make less irresponsible choices.
I’m interested to hear how you rationalize slave labor as something that isn’t wrong (by your definition) - and child labor at that! You may have a hard time convincing me - I’m still confused about your not believing chickens feel pain or care for others of their own kind.
May 24th, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Let me just respond to a few points right away, but I need more time to before I get to everything as a whole.
Ron-I do not rationalize slave labor as something that isn’t wrong. By my definition it is wrong. It is not necessary. It is cheap and it happens not because American consumers and economy rely on it, but because a few amass great wealth for it and we (American consumers) are caught in the system. If we could convince countries who legalize it to ban it, and if we could convict those who do it illegally, things would equal out. Jobless adults in those countries would be able to get jobs. Their middle class would grow, and this would stimulate their economy.
American companies would have turn back (to a degtree) to Americans for manufacturing. Prices would go up in the short run, but more Americans would find more jobs and in the long run, the economy would eventually stabilize again.
All the examples that you have given as “necessary evils”: I do not believe they are necessary. BTW, I did give a short response to your last comment on the “System For Morality” post, Ron, just in case you didn’t see it.
We need to eradicate all of these practices: child lavor, slavery, honor killing, genital mutilation, etc. But my point was NOT that I rationalize them. My point is that these things take time to make happen.
My point is that Ron in Pennsylvania and Noell in Arizona have very little power against these things. At least not as indiviuals. We have to keep living our lives, and while we do, we can be advancing the cause of reason and equity. We can enlighten others about the sources of their beloved material wealth. We can demand our governments work to change the system. We can fund organizations who do.
To me, this is what Humanism means: we can’t sit around hoping for a god and an afterlife to make it all better. We have reason, we have science, we have empathy (which allows us to acknowledge others’ pain). In other words, we have the ability to fix these problems. And we have made great strides foward in the last few hundred years. As technology continues to improve at a faster and faster pace, our ability to make global changes is also accelerating.
Hifi–I love the description of your approach with your children. I can see its benefits in multiple ways and I will be putting a LOT of thought into it.
I don’t understand, though, why you don’t think that an axiom that instructs children to “promote civil liberties” isn’t a moral code. Sounds like morality to me.
Even the quote you used about natural morality was a reference to morality as an acceptable and secular idea. Not everybody sees morality the ways you describe it. I will put more time into the topic of how other secularists define morality. I have heard a number of Evolutionary Psychologists refer to morality. I am wondering if this is the difference in our paradigms: I come from the perspective of Evolutionary Psychology. I know Gregg100 has studied it. Have either of you (Hifi and Ron) studied it?
I don’t understand why you don’t see a need to teach our children that while they are exercising their self-interests, it is moral to make sure they are not hurting others in the process (for examples, spreading untrue rumors about another peer, lying to get an innocent peer in trouble in order to avoid getting in trouble yourself, etc.) This are what I consider morality.
I am not alone in referring to morality that way either. Again, I am going to take more time on this point and get back to you.
Ron–how is it not non-deist to base morality on the most basic concepts that: (1)We exist (2)We can feel pain (3)We have empathy, meaning we can acknowledge others’ pain (4)We can make choices that avoid causing others pain.
Where is the deism in that? I think it is quite existential.
Okay, guys, this is a start. I need to attend to my kids. And I need to sit down and look at your comments point by point. I’ve been responding to your comments hit-and-miss and spontaneously, which I know must be frustrating to you.
I need to take more time to look at each point in a more thoughtful manner. I also need to take more time to write in a way where I am communicating more effectively.
May 24th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Noell - Telling your children to promote civil liberties is like telling the city to put up a traffic light and enforce a law about it. There is nothing moral about it, nothing altruistic, it is self-interest, pure and simple to want a system in place whereby one is not at risk of being run down. Like feeding oneself. As for the Taoist rephrase, the point is whatever you can think of as morality, is not moral. It is folly to think in those terms.
I argued the Golden Rule and killing. Do I have to be the one to go through the same exercise on your other practices in need of eradiction? So universally condemned that there aren’t even laws, religious or civic, against them? In fact, fixing the problem for others who didn’t ask for it can be seen as pretentious patronization - imperialist (when foreign) or class (when domestic). Again, I have to question the perspecitive of these priorities, with millions dying daily of hunger and disease, you are worrying about children earing enough to feed themselves and in many cases their entire families?
I am familiar with Evolutionary Psychology - mostly all theory and no substance. I particularly think that M. Shermer is off the mark - as much tactically as tecnically. My background is cultural anthropology so I know what they try to base their claims on.
As for what’s wrong with saying to our children “It is not moral to….” I shudder at ever hearing those words uttered in our home. Why not? For one, where are the reasons? It is very telling that one NEVER hears any reasons given when this kind of line is taken. Even, “it will make others feel bad and you wouldn’t want others to make you feel bad…” I think I’ve already demolished as a good enough reason to generally apply any “should” in a unique situation. Why take the short-cut? Why not think, when one can instead think through the pros and cons and use that as a basis for action, instead.
And more basically, why do you assume the problem is with the kids and not the situation or system? I find no reason to believe that “spreading untrue rumors about another peer, lying to get an innocent peer in trouble in order to avoid getting in trouble yourself” is not an instinctively correct choice in circumstances where children find it necessary. It’s natural survival - sometimes for the common welfare, sometimes in conflict with it.
(I hope you all can take time to read my character education articles soon, so I don’t have to load up these comments with excerpts from them.)
“Lessons on [flaws in the structure of society] would include demonstrating how improving social conditions eliminates the causes of inequities and injustices that produce social discontinuity and how equal opportunity and the common welfare promotes cooperation and sense of community. Under these social conditions the need to make personal choices so “strategic” is automatically reduced.
Indeed, without adding fundamental pillars of equality and mutuality (fraternity), the other pillars become altruistic, utopian and dangerous. Confronted with imbalances of power and opportunity, the effective defense - besides trying to work within the system to change them (as we are here) - is to respond with equally unfair behavior. Choices people make are not about right and wrong; they are practical. A simple demonstration is that when the economy is good, crime goes down. On the other hand, if people are poor, marginalized and not integrated in society, you get riots. No morality involved, one way or the other, thank you. Unfortunately, as things stand right now, in America, practical is pretty ugly.
In order to bring students’ attention to dysfunctional structures of society, they can be encouraged to research the roots of social dissonance, explore the basis of socio-economic conditions and contemplate how to correct and improve them. In today’s America, where the system is still too obviously rigged, it will seem in many ways “fairer” to cheat, lie and pilfer; indulge greed and pride; use money, anabolic drugs, or cronyism to get ahead - instead of merit; avoid intellectual honesty like a plague; use marketing manipulation to make your point, and finally, decide who is right by who is the strongest…”
May 25th, 2006 @ 7:29 am
Ron–On chickens:
Neurological sources for pain are not inherent in every creature (as if God created it in all of us?) but evolved. Some creatures have a limited capacity for it, some have a huge capacity, and some may have no capacity.
Likewise, emotional attachment to others was also an evolutionary adaptation and not every creature had an environmental need to develop it.
May 25th, 2006 @ 8:12 am
Hifi, I have almost no sit-down time today and tomorrow. I will give you a response (which is also the response Ron is waiting for ) as soon as I can.
May 25th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Even though Rajneesh was convinced that with the help of scientists and others he could create a self supporting ranch on barren wasteland that could produce enough food and be made habitable without relying on all of the energy resources we rely on today the christians defiled and criticized him. He was aware that there had to be trading going on with local merchants . Rather than compete with the massive oregonian christian population he wanted to get along and trade with them.That wasn’t to be because they feared he was out to turn their children away from religion so they made things up by saying the ranch was nothing but an orgy city where people constantly had sex with each other and violated all of the laws of god and rules of morality he (pretend god ) had laid down for each of us . It was funny . They ( the christians ) sent buses into the village to “rescue ” us . No one wanted to be rescued but when the buses returned to Portland they said that there were always keepers watching our every move and everyone was afraid to board. That was simply not true. The Christians immediately organized and hired planes to fly over and drop leaflets . It was surreal. Why am I writing this you may ask , well it’s all interspersed with the morality concept . It’s just an example of Hi fi’s breakdown of definition’s of morality. They desparately wanted us out of there so that there propaganda regarding god’s, ghosts, and spirits of supernaturalism would again reign supreme Scientific principles were being put to the test . Deer were walking alongside of you down the road Birds were reclaiming the land . We had greenery growing there . On barren wasteland!! It broke my heart when we had to leave . I was learning so much.
May 26th, 2006 @ 7:16 am
I didn’t give a list of necessary evils for you to disagree with - so I’m not sure what you are referring to.
When I say slavery etc. are pervasive problems that people accept without a second thought - I’m not saying that makes the problems necessary.
Having a system declaring universal good and evil makes the problems harder to change - as one quickly becomes overwhelmed with the horrors of the world when they realize nature doesn’t play by these man-made rules. The overwhelmed are more likely to respond as you did “Noell in Arizona and Ron in Pennsylvania can’t change these things” - which implies that we have no choice but to continue supporting them (knowing the support of these atrocities is the only thing maintaining them). Individuals do make a difference - especially when their example spreads through others - I think the approach of “I can’t change it - so I’ll accept it” is a destructive example to children. Humanity is made of individuals.
I don’t make my own clothes (or, as would also usually be called for, my own cloth with which to make the clothes) - but I don’t call the slavery wrong/bad/evil either. I recognize it as something that should ideally be changed - something I’m against (”what goes around comes around” works better than the golden rule) - and something I make strides toward personally affecting by increasing my awareness of who I give my money to. Adhering to a transcendent set of descriptions good/bad/wrong/evil - encourages surrender to black and white and ignores the process of making something a lighter shade of grey. It makes everyone look at you cockeyed for suggesting their most basic choices are something that require more scrutiny.
There is no true black or white - there is no true good or evil. There are (maddeningly) complex shades between.
Your response “regarding chickens” is a broad statement that doesn’t refer to chickens - it refers to ’some creatures’. Chickens feel pain, and have communal living in their life cycle which necessitates interrelationships that affect survival (these relationships are the stimulus for cooperational and sympathetic consideration).
The human empathy you refer to is factually impossible - the best we can ever do is have sympathy, as we can never be in another’s exact position. If we could have true empathy - your morality system may work, but diversity of experience can not be overcome (nor would we want it to be).
How does a concept of right and wrong stink of deism? Where do your ideas of right and wrong come from? If from personal experience alone (hard for the very wisest among us) it is still a projection of that experience onto others when you state that good and bad transcend personal opinion. What gives us the right to project our views of good and evil? This is a declaration that emotions are scientifically verifiable as specific natural laws. So they are being declared as a law passed down from nature. Regarding two key examples - abuse of children, necessities of pain and suffering - nature contains unlimited examples of these being a part of living. Nature/science isn’t the origin of these emotions - our thinking is. Our individual, diverse thinking. And by ‘us’ I am not limiting thinking to humanity - all thinking creatures with their personal preferences.
Its like empathy. There is no such thing. Opinions of right and wrong are in the individual. I have no doubt that we are splitting hairs while saying nearly the same things - but I also have no doubt that adhering to a system of morality defined by projections of good and bad can not be an effective approach - it is the approach that created the quagmire of religion.
I have not read much on evolutionary psychology - but knowing how much the science of psychology itself is in its infancy - I can’t imagine that the study of changing psychology through our evolutionary predecessors is very dependable as of today. I’m sure its very interesting though - and I do wish to learn more about it.
May 28th, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Hifi- Finally I am responding to your last comment. I will italicize your statements and put them in quotes. Then you can read my response. (Ron-some of these answers also answer your comment. But I will do the same thing with whatever is leftover in your comment).
“I argued the Golden Rule and killing. Do I have to be the one to go through the same exercise on your other practices in need of eradiction?”
I didn’t know what the point was of your arguing both these topics because I purposely did not use them as examples for the very same reasons. You set up two straw men. You actually ignored the examples I did use of unequivocal wrongs: violence against children and rape. I am curious to see how you would argue that humans cannot use their reason to distinguish those as conclusively wrong.
You might argue that there is an appropriate time for violence against children in primitive societies where they toughen them through initiations and such in preparation for a harsh, violent, and competitive environment. But it is that violent environment which is unnecessary, and removing the need for violence and competition among tribes eliminates the need for such harsh toughening.
Which brings us back to this point that violence against children is wrong. The reason for changing that system, which is to decrease instances of that violence, is because it is wrong. And it’s not just because you, yourself, don’t want others to be violent against your children (the self-interest aspect which you only acknowledge), but because of empathy: you also (I hope) cringe and feel an amount of pain at the thought of violence against ANY child. This is MY point: Evolution endowed humans with Empathy, Reason, and a Moral Sense (The moral sense came before religion. Religion just hijacked and twisted it). Because humans have these qualities, we can conclude that causing another person unnecessary pain is wrong.
“So universally condemned that there aren’t even laws, religious or civic, against them?”
Are you referring to my query about day-to-day instances where we choose actions that hurt others? If so, then yes I still say these are relevant issues for our children. But I am not laying any claims that specific those specific issues are “universally condemned.” My point is that as creatures who have the ability to recognize how our actions effect others, how we can choose to cause or not cause people pain, and as creatures who have the ability to reason, we can evaluate our options. And we can find actions that don’t hurt others without constantly subverting our own self-interests.
“In fact, fixing the problem for others who didn’t ask for it can be seen as pretentious patronization - imperialist (when foreign) or class (when domestic). Again, I have to question the perspecitive of these priorities, with millions dying daily of hunger and disease, you are worrying about children earing enough to feed themselves and in many cases their entire families?”
Hifi, where do you get the idea that I prioritize eliminating child labor over hunger and disease? Why in the world would you get that idea? Number one, I was responding to a specific query from Ron. I never said anything was a priority over something else. I have not addressed any one issue as being more important, urgent, or necessary over another. He asked me about child slave labor and I answered.
More important than that, we were talking about child slavery! Not the willing labor of children who are helping their families. And yes, I DO include the slavery of children as a wretched evil that needs to be eradicated. The owners in the culture may not want our involvement in eliminating slavery, but those children but to conclude that the children don’t want out of the situation is ignorance of human nature.
The same goes for rape against women. I better not hear any man tell me that it is “patronizing” and “imperialistic” (as you put it) to want to help women in cultures where rape is acceptable. Women do not want to be raped.
“I am familiar with Evolutionary Psychology - mostly all theory and no substance. I particularly think that M. Shermer is off the mark - as much tactically as tecnically. My background is cultural anthropology so I know what they try to base their claims on.”
I am not aware of Michael Shermer having any opinions of Evolutionary Psychology. Your response leads me to think that you are more unfamiliar with it than familiar. Shermer, if he does discuss Evolutionary Psychology, is hardly the person to associate with it. Your comment about him seems to imply that it is his own theory, or that he is a leader in the field. In actuality, it is a huge field of research, Richard Dawkins being one of its many key scientists. I’d list a bunch others, but I don’t know how familiar you are with various scientists. I don’t know how many you would recognize.
So, is it, as you claimed, “mostly all theory and no substance?” This is what it really is: “a multidisciplinary integrative research framework within which cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, cultural anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists, hunter-gatherer researchers, primatologists, developmental psychologists, social psychologists, behavioral ecologists, and others are communicating and collaborating . . .” (from the Center For Evolutionary Psychology).
Research approaches include: Laboratory-based cognitive experimentation, Field studies of tribal and foraging peoples, Psychophysiology, Cross-cultural experimentation and observation, Cognitive neuroscience, Social psychological and survey methods, Developmental studies, Theoretical biology, Hunter-gatherer archaeology.
That is hardly what I would call all theory and no substance. In fact, based on many of our previous discussions on AgnosticMom, I conclude that both you and (especially) Ron both hold theories or “beliefs” that are actually theories of Evolutionary Psychology and you just don’t realize it. As an example the idea of the “god-gene,” or a number of genes that combine to give us a tendency to believe in gods, is a theory of that field that you may subscribe to. If you don’t agree with that one, I am sure there are others, such as the origins of altruism and tit-for-tat.
I could cites works and references for days and days about how this field of research is taking over the old, pre-darwinian ways of thinking. I will stop now and save them for future blog entries.
“As for what’s wrong with saying to our children “It is not moral to….” I shudder at ever hearing those words uttered in our home.”
I wouldn’t use that phrase either. While I haven’t discounted the word, “moral” altogether, as you have, I never advocated telling kids what is and isn’t moral. The purpose of my system for morality was to avoid that. I want to give them a system, or a couple of questions, that they can use to reason it out themselves. I don’t know how many different ways I need to re-explain this.
I keep saying over and over that I do not think we should give the kids a list of do’s and don’ts. I keep saying again and again that I don’t think we should say certain “character” qualities, such as honesty, are good or bad. But you keep coming at me as if AM advocating those things.
Like you, I AM advocating we teach our children to evaluate their situations (situational ethics) to make their choices. I also feel that the person’s own pain and happiness comes into play first when considering the overall effects of pain.
So that is not where we are different. Where we are different is whether there is any reason to make a choice based on how it effects other people. You mischaracterize that idea by suggesting I advocate admonitions such as:
“it will make others feel bad and you wouldn’t want others to make you feel bad…”
Again, your above statement does not in anyway characterize my system for morality. That does not accurately answer the question of whether an action increases unnecessary pain. Hurting someone’s feelings can at times be very helpful. Not only that, but once again, that statement is an example of a parent telling their child what is right or wrong, rather than helping them come to the conclusion them selves.
Moving on, you asked:
“why do you assume the problem is with the kids and not the situation or system? I find no reason to believe that “spreading untrue rumors about another peer, lying to get an innocent peer in trouble in order to avoid getting in trouble yourself” is not an instinctively correct choice in circumstances where children find it necessary. It’s natural survival - sometimes for the common welfare, sometimes in conflict with it.”
Let me start with the first part of that paragraph: It is similar to your earlier question (which I forgot to answer) of whether I view children as good or bad. My answer is neither. We are a product of evolutionary forces, or a product of nature. Nature is not moral or immoral. It just is. The same goes for us, children, and human nature.
Morality comes into play where we, with all of our amoral instincts of physical and social survival, associate in communities. The problem is the mere fact that sometimes our own self-interests (which are amoral) competes with other people’s self-interests. It is in that interaction that morality comes into existence. And as interaction with others is a part of humanity, we evolved a moral sense.
Religion and the self-interest-driven need of some to exert authorities over others hijacked morality and twisted it into an arbitrary list of rights and wrongs, do’s and don’ts. When I wrote in my post how I define “good” and “bad” I was deconstructing what religion made of those concepts.
“Lessons on [flaws in the structure of society] would include demonstrating how improving social conditions eliminates the causes of inequities and injustices that produce social discontinuity and how equal opportunity and the common welfare promotes cooperation and sense of community. Under these social conditions the need to make personal choices so “strategic” is automatically reduced.”
Notice you used the word, “reduced.” Fixing the social structure wouldn’t actually eliminate the need, would it? The idea that we could ever get to that state is naive. Our own self-interests will prevent it, as they always have in the past. And even if we were able to, there will always be those whose greed and ambitions will topple it right back down again. If all things were equal, there will always be those who want to have more, and have better, than the others. And they will find their way to make that happen.
“Confronted with imbalances of power and opportunity, the effective defense - besides trying to work within the system to change them (as we are here) - is to respond with equally unfair behavior. Choices people make are not about right and wrong; they are practical. A simple demonstration is that when the economy is good, crime goes down. On the other hand, if people are poor, marginalized and not integrated in society, you get riots. No morality involved, one way or the other, thank you.”
I agree with you that changing the system/structure will answer a mountain of these problems. I am with you on that. But you are wrong to make it the exclusive answer and ignore the concept of morality. By reducing it 100% to the situation, you close your eyes to the fact that many of those poor and marginalized people DON’T commit crimes or participate in riots. You are ignoring the fact that, while much of what we do is instinctual, (so instinctual that we don’t even recognize it as instinct) we ALSO have the ability to stop and make a less harmful choice. As many of us do.
Which leads me to my other point of morality. Morality is part nature, part nurture. We have it instinctually in different amounts. I read somewhere that sociopaths do not have it all, and that is the problem we face with them. The rest of morality is nurture. Meaning, as parents, we can help increase the moral instinct of our children. We can do that, not by giving them a list of rules (as religions do) but by helping them to acknowledge the pain of others and giving them a way to evaluate it.
May 28th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
Ron- Here is my response to your last comment. It will be more clear if you read my response to Hifi first.
“I didn’t give a list of necessary evils for you to disagree with - so I’m not sure what you are referring to.”
You did give me a list of difficult scenarios regarding our consumerism, where our products come from, and how they cause pain to others. I guess I thought you were calling them necessary evils?
“When I say slavery etc. are pervasive problems that people accept without a second thought - I’m not saying that makes the problems necessary.”
Yes. I see that now. But how can you say people accept them without a second thought? In my experience, people don’t know about it. And if they hear it, they have a hard time believing it. And if they believe it, they are horrified and enter into a dilemma of what to do about the situation. I disagree with you that they accept it.
“Having a system declaring universal good and evil makes the problems harder to change - as one quickly becomes overwhelmed with the horrors of the world when they realize nature doesn’t play by these man-made rules. The overwhelmed are more likely to respond as you did “Noell in Arizona and Ron in Pennsylvania can’t change these things” - which implies that we have no choice but to continue supporting them (knowing the support of these atrocities is the only thing maintaining them). Individuals do make a difference - especially when their example spreads through others - I think the approach of “I can’t change it - so I’ll accept it” is a destructive example to children. Humanity is made of individuals.”
Ron, I don’t think your above statement is logically consistent. How does calling the problems “universally evil” overwhelm someone into inaction, while calling them “atrocities,” as you did’ and not overwhelm someone? Calling it one or the other doesn’t make it overwhelming or not overwhelming. It doesn’t make a difference whether you think they are universally bad or not.
And I didn’t say I would accept the situation. I was stating a fact that you admit below when you said you buy clothes: that we are in a society where we have to support some of those destructive institutions some of the time. In the meantime, we do what we can to change it.
“I don’t make my own clothes (or, as would also usually be called for, my own cloth with which to make the clothes) - but I don’t call the slavery wrong/bad/evil either. I recognize it as something that should ideally be changed - something I’m against”
In the above 2 paragraphs you implied that I am not against slavery because I am overwhelmed by my idea that it is evil, or that a person who thinks it is evil must not be against it because they are overwhelmed. That is wrong. On both sides of the fence, whether we think it is evil or just “should ideally be changed” (which implies a morality) are those of us who who are against it.
“I don’t make my own clothes (or, as would also usually be called for, my own cloth with which to make the clothes) - but I don’t call the slavery wrong/bad/evil either. I recognize it as something that should ideally be changed - something I’m against (”what goes around comes around” works better than the golden rule)”
You’re saying that the idea that “what goes around comes around” is adequate motivation to be against slavery? How many of us in America actually think that slavery could “come around” to us as a result of buying the products of slaves? So far it hasn’t come around to the millions who have been doing it for decades. This is a perfect example of where your paradigm breaks down. Slavery is never going to “come around” to me nor my children. Especially not as a result of my consumption. The only way that were to be so is through some mystical force of supernaturalism that caused that to happen. But we’re not into supernaturalism here, are we?
I just don’t buy into your statement that you are against slavery because “what goes around comes around.” I think you are against slavery because the instinctive moral sense within you, provided by evolution itself, makes you acknowledge that slavery is a violation against a person and is wrong.
“Adhering to a transcendent set of descriptions good/bad/wrong/evil - encourages surrender to black and white and ignores the process of making something a lighter shade of grey.”
Did I say the word “transcendent?” That was your assumption, which is causing you and Hifi to misunderstand me on multiple levels. It is both instinctive and man-made: instinctive in that we evolved a moral sense because of the other evolved perceptions of fairness and equality and because of evolved traits such as reason and empathy. Again, it is man-made because of reason. Also, my system revolves around causing others pain, not around good/bad/wrong/evil.
And it does NOT render to black and white. The only black and whites are the few examples that are clear and obvious to be causing unnecessary pain: violence against children, rape, slavery. Certain circumstance for murder (but NOT ALL) could be included, those circumstances being where a person does it to get gain. Murder is grey when it comes to war, the death penalty, self-defense, etc.
“There is no true black or white - there is no true good or evil. There are (maddeningly) complex shades between.”
Not true: The world is almost completely a complex shades of grey, while there is a small handful of black-and-whites. Having a system to gauge morality to the best of your ability helps us with the shades of grey. I never said it would give us all the correct answers. I said it would help us with the answers, which in turn, increases overall happiness and decreases overall pain.
“Your response “regarding chickens” is a broad statement that doesn’t refer to chickens - it refers to ’some creatures’. Chickens feel pain, and have communal living in their life cycle which necessitates interrelationships that affect survival (these relationships are the stimulus for cooperational and sympathetic consideration).”
I have read that it refers also to chickens. And I didn’t say chickens were on the no-pain end of the spectrum. There is a spectrum of the amount of pain a creature has the capacity to feel. I am confident that chickens feel some level of pain. But I have read that current studies indicate that chickens have a very low pain factor. Likewise, communal living among species does not indicate emotional relationships. Bees and ants are extremely communal. They (and the chickens) seem to not feel emotional distress when one is gone.
But let me remind you, as I said originally: I am not claiming the accuracy of this idea. I was just trying to give an example of how one person might go about answering for themselves whether an action (eating chicken) was moral. Frankly, it’s a stupid example and I used it only because it was on my mind. Let me also remind you that we will often come up with different answers. As you said, these are grey areas and I think every person should answer for themselves.
“The human empathy you refer to is factually impossible - the best we can ever do is have sympathy, as we can never be in another’s exact position. If we could have true empathy - your morality system may work, but diversity of experience can not be overcome (nor would we want it to be).”
Empathy is not impossible. Your definition of it is impossible. And your definition is wrong. REAL empathy, with its real definition, is in fact a part of us. Dictionary.com says that empathy is “Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.”
It is not about being in their exact position. It is about identifying and understanding it. The more empathy a person has, the better they are at imagining another person’s pain more accurately. We do not all have the same amount of empathy.
The reasons movies are so effective is because we can identify with the characters and what they are feeling.
Sympathy is inferior to empathy in terms of helping others. It keeps you at a different level than the person you are trying to identify with. Having empathy DOES make the system work because empathy is not about the specific situation. Empathy is about how the various situations make a person feel inside. And all humans are able to feel the same types of emotions and physical pain.
When I watch Big Love (the polygamy show) I empathize with the characters. I can imagine what it must feel to realize the first wife is the favorite. I have never been in that situation. But I know what love is and I know what jealousy is. I know what loneliness is.
“How does a concept of right and wrong stink of deism? Where do your ideas of right and wrong come from? If from personal experience alone (hard for the very wisest among us) it is still a projection of that experience onto others when you state that good and bad transcend personal opinion.”
No, it is not from personal experience.
“What gives us the right to project our views of good and evil? This is a declaration that emotions are scientifically verifiable as specific natural laws. So they are being declared as a law passed down from nature. Regarding two key examples - abuse of children, necessities of pain and suffering - nature contains unlimited examples of these being a part of living. Nature/science isn’t the origin of these emotions - our thinking is. Our individual, diverse thinking. And by ‘us’ I am not limiting thinking to humanity - all thinking creatures with their personal preferences.”
You’re close, but not completely. Humans evolved a moral sense. So, in that way it came from nature. But not in the way you’re thinking. Nature doesn’t have rules for morality. Nature is amoral. Humans got morality naturally. It evolved within humans. There is no reason to think that it evolved in other creatures. Morality is not a law of nature. It was a byproduct of human evolution.
“Its like empathy. There is no such thing.”
Again, wrong.
“Opinions of right and wrong are in the individual.”
Yes, to an extent, I agree. That is why I proposed a system for the individual to use. I did not propose a list of what is right and what is wrong.
“I have no doubt that we are splitting hairs while saying nearly the same things -”
Yes! Thank you!
“but I also have no doubt that adhering to a system of morality defined by projections of good and bad can not be an effective approach - it is the approach that created the quagmire of religion.”
The system was not defined by projections of good and bad. Again, this is the gross misunderstanding that I hope you and Hifi will understand. The system is defined by unnecessary pain and evil. Religi