I think you bring up another factor about universally associated with “morality” – and which is another good reason to avoid the term – and that is that when you add guilt, a simple social rule for self-preservation becomes a moral rule. For instance, “Cross the street at the crosswalk. Oh, you didn’t do it. That was bad.” Moral rules work as far as they go and they are adequate for tribal life where the dangers are consistent and the social sturucture is straightforward. But only up to the point where you start hanging people by the thumbs who jay walk and waging war on countries where they make cars watch out for people instead of the other way around, so people cross wherever they like. Usually the public moral issues of our day have to do with religious people wanting other people to conform to their way of life. Thus public morality is almost always about punishing people for lifestyle crimes (prohibition, gambling, drugs, consensual sex and marriage…).

At the macro/micro level, your example is, of course, a social situation (not moral, not a dilemma). The church powers, needing everyone to feel included in the church community, add that tasty little ingredient of guilt so as to trip you into making it into a moral dilemma. Unconditional acceptance is probably the main draw of church for a lot of people – got a loving omniscient and omnipresent Father figure to boot – most care less about the theology. But, really, if you are a loser, church is a great place to get the false feedback that you aren’t one. And there also goes the opportunity that might have motivated a person to improve.

I was always impressed by the fake demeanor of Mormons and how shallow it is. Even in South Park’s famous episode, the boys after figuring out that Mormonism must be a sham, still insisted, “But that Mormon kid sure is nice!” I remember keeping short hair in the 70s was a moral imperative. All part of how the LDS recognize each other: moral conformity, exercised by guilt and motivated by the natural desire to belong – so what if you have to sacrifice every ounce of intellectual integrity? I couldn’t do that, so I gave up morality.

“self-interest is the source of this moral sense”!

When I would try to ‘mirror’ you, I was honestly writing what I thought you meant. I thought you were actually stating that nature was the source of moral truths – and that exclusive ole humankind got lucky enough to tune in due to processes of natural selection. That’s why I said before that the approach seemed uncharacteristic from you.

I just left comment on another thread – as I wander aimlessly – trying for more clarification, but this does it.

And your post above – - – yes again.

I think HiFi’s point of avoiding the vocabulary of ‘morality’ is illustrated through all these machinations – - the religious have made the term synonymous with something transcending natural processes. A gift/curse/mandate from God. I never truly caught on that you were using it in a way that actually differed where it counts (origins).

The Public/Macro/Micro is a big part of this.
I was looking at it Macro, then Public, then Micro – - pretty much the opposite from how you intended.

I’m really happy to read this.
I can go to bed now.

And maybe I am starting to grasp one of the concepts that you and Ron tried to get across before. I don’t think I fully got it before now.

It seems we are talking about things on different levels.

First is the level of public policy and laws. I probably never communicated to you, (and maybe it wasn’t even clear in my mind at first) that what I have been calling a “System For Morality” does not apply to the public realm. That is the disaster we now face with the majority’s reasoning for keeping “under God” in the Pledge, for banning flag burning, for banning homosexual marriages, etc.

I agree with you 100% on how we should derive our laws, although I don’t feel competent enough yet to restate it. (I need to re-read your articles).

Then there is the macro-level of things: how our day-to-day actions effect the world in the grand scheme of things: pollution, consumption, etc. What seems to me to be a good thing, (sacrificing my own time to drive my kids all over town so they can develop their skills and talents), does long-term damage to the overall-well being of the world.

To avoid harming the world, I would have to become a hermit, stay home, make my own clothes, grow my own food, only go where I can ride my bike (which I must have verified was manufactured on ehtical terms) or walk, and become depressed. In which case, if we all did that, we would all be safe, but also depressed.

At this point in human progress and techonolgy (if that is what it is) personal happiness and the overall well-being of the world is in direct conflict.

In the short term, there is nothing we can do to avoid harm in some way, either to ourselves or to long-term world security.

BUT, to me, the moral sense at least pokes its head at this level. I am not willing to make the choice to give up my own happiness in the way I described above. Perhaps that is “immoral” by my own terms. What the moral sense does do is motivate me to make small changes in my lifestyle that are manageable. It motivates me to spread the word, and to try to elect politicians who have this same view.

The example of Walmart illustrates this: I did not see how it was in my best interest to avoid Walmart until you and Ron explained it in a way that made sense to me. But without understanding how it effected my self-interest, I was already concerned because of the moral implications. Even now that I see how corporations like Walmart can effect me, it is hard for me to really take it to heart. It doesn’t really motivate me. What motivates me is the knowledge of how some of the practices hurt others.

So it would seem wise to me to appeal to both aspects of our nature: empathy & enlightened self-interest.

But then there is a third level. It is the micro-level where we are all caught up in the day-to-day aspects of our communities. It is where we have relationsip with other people, in our neighborhood, in school, with our friends and family, etc. This is where I actually intended the “the system” to apply. This is where I think it takes a balance of self-interest and empathy.

Here is a personal example of a “moral dilemma.”

When I was a teen our church leaders were in the practice of social engineering. They guilt-tripped us all the time into spending time with those who were less than desireable. Don’t get me wrong. At times I am sure that was me.

Now, as an adult, I am courteous whether I find people to my taste or not. But I refuse to give my personal time to those I do not enjoy being around, the way my church leaders told me I should.

If someone I don’t enjoy invites me to spend time with them I decline. It is not in my personal interest. But when I am already in the presence of people, whether I find them enjoyable of not, I am not going to ignore them, let alone be rude. I would make the choice to not cause pain by being courteous and friendly. I make the choice not to gossip about them or make fun of them when they are gone. I will engage them in conversation and contribute to a pleasant time.

In this way, I can maintain my personal interest (not committing my personal time by saying yes to an invitation with someone I don’t enjoy) while also not causing others pain.

I talk my kids through the same thing. They can be friendly to a kid who irritates them, but choose to play with other children they like.

Does that make sense?

Hifi and Ron, do any of these principles contradict your own?

You said, “You have argued that there is a right and wrong in the world that we’ve been granted vision of through evolution.”

We have been granted a vision of right and wrong? Oh, Ron, no wonder you disagree with me. I would too!

Maybe if I keep re-explaining it, it will come of weirder and weirder. But I’ll try again.

Because of our need to survive, humans evolved altruistic tendencies. Our own self-interest is the source of this moral sense that we have that some things are right and some things are wrong. Because of survival interests we have learned to understand that others feel pain, just like we do. This became empathy. It’s not about a vision of right and wrong. It is about a mutual understanding of eachother’s pain and desire to survive.

I do realize I must be miscommunicating, because in every comment from you and Hifi regarding this subject, you both mischaracterize my statements and position. Meanwhile, I know that a large number of people read these comments and I don’t want others thinking that my position is what you and Hifi say it is, because it is not. You can understand that, right?

So, yes, it gets very frustrating. And my frustration and impatience probably does not help.

In addition to that, I am neglecting other responsibilities to answer these comments, so I am trying to type fast and I think it comes out more terse than I mean it to.

What others don’t realize is that both you and Hifi email me and we converse as friends all the time. It is just on this subject that the miscommunication is problematic. If I could start the entire topic over, and eliminate the word “morality” I think you and Hifi would not have derived ideas that are not at all in line with my thinking. We would probably be in happy agreement right now and talking about different subjects!

Maybe I can save you a few keystrokes here. I didn’t say Thomas’ article represents my position. I said “Thomas does a good job of representing the position I have taken about the altruism-brutality duality in the in-group/out-group dynamic of our social instinct. Just that part of it. Don’t get me started on “love” having any practical use in making decisions about anything more than extremely local, genetic survival.

To be clear, I disagree with you (as did Ron) that we can avoid hurting others while attending to our own needs. We can almost never do that. (Either way, though, whether you can live with your actions incorporates both possibilities.) Currently 99% of these trade offs between self and others are going to benefit us as rich and oblivious Americans at the expense of others, merrily sequestering world resources while exporting overt death and destruction (“moral action” it’s called), indulging ourselves while hurting others even to the extent of destroying half the life on this planet, species after species, via global warming. If humans have a moral sense, where on earth does it function outside of the local community?

Are we going to claim inherent moral sense when humanity’s best application of it might mitigate maybe 1% of suffering that is unnecessary, and leave the other 99% as necessary? Russell’s revealed ethics are no different than derived ethics if something as nebulous, emotional and local as “love” is part of it. Thus the inability of either, as Thomas admits, to deal with war. The evidence, I think, has been in for a long time on this.

Noell, might it help, at this point, to change the format a bit? We have all agreed that, in practice, a lot of this comes down to specifics. Can you submit a specific example of the kind of moral sense you are trying to convey – of your moral system – in action?

For instance, those cumulative quick trips to the dance lesson are doing how much untold damage? Is it necessary suffering? Would a 1st phase evolved-human moral sense ever alert a person to causing it? We know that observing a 2nd phase evolved-human moral rule would only make it worse. However, a thorough education, one that delivers a naturalistic worldview and the rational tools of a 3rd phase evolved-human – an education sufficient to repress the intuitive motivations of the other two – that would able to recognize the self and group interest at stake in suburban transportation. War would be as easily understood.

P.S., personally I like an impassioned style of discourse – quite European.

Also – The Thomas article supported a position contrary to yours in my reading of it.

You have argued that there is a right and wrong in the world that we’ve been granted vision of through evolution.
He writes of people recognizing that its in their best interest to collaborate with a group, producing more common feelings towards what behaviors we define as loving and kind.
That is not how I read your system of guessing at what makes something necessary or not to diverse groups.

I think that you are increasingly coming across as impatient of views contrary to your own on this topic (even when calling it a failure of your own to communicate) – and your typing reads as a little angry. I know it can be frustrating to disagree – but I think we all have good intentions.

I am encouraged that you think agreement over Thomas’ piece represents what we have in common, though.

Hifi, you are good at communicating and many of your individual statements sound good. But when I look at them on a whole, going from one comment to the next, at least on this topic, you are full of contradictions. Your thinking that Thomas’ article represents your position is an example. He said a number of things that directly contradict your own statements. Even his title contradicts your arguments against Evolutionary Psychology.

I can point out examples of thee contraditions I am referring to, but that will have to wait for now. Trinity has a dance class in a few minutes.

Noell, what can I say? Your insistence on attaching the word “moral” to raising children without religion is what I cannot accept. On how many grounds: scientific, political, cultural, forensic (damaging framing), lexical (the definition of “moral” invokes right and wrong and conformity), and pedagogical.

Instead, how about calling this subject, “how to help your children make decisions that they can live with”?

I would never say all religious rules are arbitrary, but for sure some of them are – and often they’re the ones which are defended with the most passion. Their purpose is to define the group, so threatening them threatens the group’s existence as something set apart. That’s a real threat, one which cannot be tolerated.

And I HAVE acknowledged the “impulse to cruelty” within us (as I believe Thomas did as well).

Likewise, in your first comment to this post, you were slightly more pleased with my wording. My position has not changed. Hopefully my ability to communicate it has. But the position is still the same. If you look back at the mess of comments from me on the other two posts, you will find all of those same ideas.

If you think Doug Thomas’ article is so similar to your position, maybe you will finally start to see how my position is also similar to yours. There is only a slight difference. But that difference is important enough to me.

I would still like to address the specifics of your other comments. I am having trouble keeping up. But I do have plenty to say. I won’t disappoint you (or perhaps I will).

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=247&article=7

Thomas does a good job of representing the position I have taken about the altruism-brutality duality in the in-group/out-group dynamic of our social instinct. Unfortunately, he didn’t mention how we have the equal impulse to cruelty when it suits us. If we humans insist on denying the overwhelming evidence about our true nature, we will never be able to do anything about it.

You are digging into a deep hole which has no limits since rules are not about reality, they are about how people try to control life. Which is silly in itself since life is change… And thats the crux. The attempt to limit change.

People want comfort, its not easy to be comfortable within change, so hence limit the range of change, or proscribe what is acceptable to make change a non issue. When fully enforced, perhaps the rule bounded feel its possible to understand God? heh

As a Taoist I find rules best ignored on a personal level, and when interacting with others show some respect and then move around thier imaginary walls of rules which limit their life. I myself always choose to fly, despite the rule that says I cannot do so, and yet I fly each day go figure.

long answer: relative to the cultural context of it’s origin.

Noell, btw, I like how you have restated your system for morality. I think we’ve now arrived at a nice convergence as to what “a system – that isn’t a system – for morality” is. In fact, if we combine insights here we discover that a moral rule is just a petrified version of a conclusion from the situational analysis that once had relevance in a specific context.

Amazing isn’t it though how moral rules are tough even for the institutions that promote and enforce them to change. Incredible social inertia. Humans internalize and lock in these rules in childhood and you have to wait for several generations, long after relevance has ceased, to die off before society can be freed up from them. Bravo, to all those here who have managed to free themselves in a single lifetime.

If that’s not too long…

Needless to say, that was only one bump on my road to dissecting what I believed and why, but it does has roots in “arbitrary,” doesn’t it?

I think the term may imply a shallowness as to the root of the meaning of the said rule or doctrine, but when it comes to enforcement of some rules, arbitrary certainly fits, considering each rule could have numerous “buts” associated with it. “Thou shalt not steal” can be very arbitrarily enforced when your starving family is on the line and the bread is just inches from your fingertips. “Thou shalt not lie” is certainly not enforced when trying to plan a surprise birthday party! When it comes to graver issues of actual church doctrine, though, maybe arbitrary may not be the “right” word per se, or maybe some people don’t like truth summed up in so “dirty” a word.

Just my two cents!