Here is the third edition to our saga on the origins of morality. Enjoy.
Bill’s Reply: In the first part of your reply you asked the (not so simple) question “Is it wrong to kill?” This is indeed a difficult question because the word “kill” has so many uses in English language. So, you are correct when you say the definition is not so easy to come by. But let me ask this question instead, “Is it wrong to murder?” This question is less complex in that the overwhelming majority of people would say yes. In the same way it would be wrong to practice animal cruelty as well (i.e., killing or maiming for no reason). Is it wrong to kill someone or something in self defense? I would say not. Is it wrong to kill an animal for the purpose of survival?
Most people would say that the Inuit woman you mentioned would not be violating any moral code of ethics because she was acting on the instinct of motherly love. The point I’m trying to make here is that there is a difference between morals and instincts. Murdering and animal cruelty have no instinctual basis where as things such as killing in self defense or killing for food are quite rooted in it. As far as “right and wrong as it applies to humans”, I would say that it ONLY applies to humans. There has never been a case that I have seen or heard of where an animal demonstrated moral ethics. The actions of an animal are based purely on instinct while human actions are based on instinct as well as moral principles.
In your reply you made the statement that: “Everyone learned that they had their own part to play. Every person was important to the survival of the whole after a while, because everyone started to develop their own skills.” Well, what about the people who didn’t learn a skill that was beneficial to the tribe? What about the elderly people in the tribe who couldn’t contribute, or the maimed, or the mentally inferior? Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Were these people simply killed in the name of social advancement? If it happened before recorded history we surely would not know it. There is no evidence to support such a premise. All I’m trying to do is look at the evidence as it presents itself. The evidence at hand would seem to suggest that there are things like compassion and kindness that often times tell us we ought to love and help these people, whether we want to or not. I don’t believe that it has anything to do with self preservation or the idea that we can’t live alone.
It seems to me that “what’s good for the tribe” or “social evolution” is unable to adequately justify giving “kindness” priority over personal well being. Or look at it another way; in our daily lives, cheating would often be more beneficial than truthfulness. On those occasions when we know we won't be caught, do we really refrain from cheating because we know, in the long run, society will be a better place because of our decision? The person who does this is an unusual person to say the least.
OK. I think we both agree that Moral Law exists. The question now seems to be: is Moral Law a social behavior we have learned and developed through necessity, or is it something altogether different – a real concrete truth that has always existed? Some of the things we have learned are mere conventions which might have been different. For example, we learn to drive on the right side of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to drive on the left. Other things, like mathematics, are real truths that we have been taught but did not make up. Mathematics is what it is and we could not have made it different if we liked. So, which class does Moral Law belong to? I believe it belongs to the same class as mathematics. One of the reasons I believe this is because, as I said before, even though there are differences between the moral ideas of one culture and another (one time and another), the differences are not really that great. Not nearly as great as most people imagine.
You can recognize the same theme running through them all. On the other hand, mere conventions, like the rules of the road or the clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. Another reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one culture and another, do you think that the morality of one culture is ever better or truer than that of another? If no set of moral ideas were better or truer than another, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality and there would be no moral progress. Progress doesn’t just mean to change; it means to change for the better. In fact, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. Well, ok then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is altogether different than either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality. You are admitting that there is such a thing as a Real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that Real Right than others. Think of it this way; if your moral ideas can be better or truer then those of the ancient Romans, then there must be something – some Real Morality – for them to be true about. To put it another way; the reason your idea of the United States can be more or less true then mine is because the United States is a real place. The USA exists, apart from what either of us thinks. In the same way - our perceptions of morality may differ, but it is a real thing none the less.
One quick note about the Roman civilization. You mentioned that many of the privileged people felt little or no guilt about doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. I agree with you that many people in that civilization did terrible things to one another. But the moral theme is still intact here. That moral theme is you can’t just do anything to anybody or be selfish in any circumstance you please. Although the Roman culture and others like them were corrupt, they still had the moral basics. To illustrate my point all we need to do is think of what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a culture where we were admired for cheating or running away in battle, or where people were proud of a man for double crossing all of his friends and family. We might as well try to imagine a culture where two plus two equals five.
At this point I would like to address the part of your reply in which you said that some Christians have approached you in the past, saying that you can’t be a law-abiding, decent person without the fear of going to Hell. Tim, my first response to this is “I’m sorry!” I’m sorry that you have been told this and that it made you angry. As a Christian myself, please accept my apologies for those who have approached you, or anybody else, with hatred or a self serving agenda. Secondly, I want to point out to you that this is not what the bible teaches. It would seem to me that the people who said these things to you have not researched the matter. If I heard fellow Christians saying these things, I would refer them to this verse in the bible:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” (Romans 2:14-15) Here, the apostle Paul is making reference to the fact that even though the Gentiles (non-Jews) didn’t have the laws of Moses to guide them, they still had laws written on their hearts. They had an internal guide so to speak. And this internal guide, I believe, is the Moral Law.
Toward the end of your reply you talked a good bit about the bible and Christianity. You said things like “The bible says this” and “Christians believe that”, and that the bible is read by many rather selectively. I agree with you that many people read only the bits of the bible that appeal to them and leave out the rest. That is why we don’t get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for different things can both say they are fighting for Christianity. So, I would say this – don’t judge the bible by what Christians do because people make mistakes, some big and some even bigger. Rather, judge the bible by what it says to do. Look at what the bible says and the context in which it says it. If you do this you will find the bible very solid. As far as critics are concerned, the bible is like an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It has taken a pounding and stood the test of time.
In regards to morality and the bible, the thing to understand is that the bible does not profess to teach any brand new morality. The Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is a summing up of what everyone, at bottom, has always known to be right. Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities – it’s quacks and crazy people who do that. In other words, people need to be reminded more than they need to be instructed. The real job of moral teaching is to keep bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles that we know to be right. You said it yourself when you said “I am a good person because it’s the right thing to do”. Well, why is it the right thing to do? There is something more than instinct at work here. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Now, for some final thoughts: As far as “what Christians believe” and the doctrine of Christian theology are concerned, I have not yet gotten within a hundred miles of that. All I have gotten to so far is that there seems to be a Power behind Moral Law and it is inside each of us, urging us to do the right thing and making us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong. At this point I don’t want to go completely into Christian beliefs. That is another subject altogether and I really hope we cover it and the Atheistic viewpoint in our up coming discussions. But for now I will say this: In the end, Christianity is quite comforting but it does not begin there. If there is a Power behind the Moral Law then, as far as I know, Christianity is the only thing that offers us any kind of explanation about it. It explains how the demands of Moral Law, which we all seem unable to meet, have been met on our behalf. Christianity does not really begin to make sense until we realize that there is a Moral Law and that we have broken it and put ourselves at odds with the Power behind it.
Tim’s Reply: You bring up some good points and, of course, there is a difference between murder and killing. There is a difference between self-defense and cruelty; there is a difference between sport and survival. I was pointing out with this example the nature of absolutes. The bees were another example. For most there is an enormous gray area, as there should be, and to make a commandment like “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is something that is all at once so absolute yet still so vague, it is absolutely impossible for ANY creature to follow.
I deliberately left my question open-ended like that when I asked: “is it wrong to kill?” because this is the one of the biggest moral issues that affects the Human species. This is one of the biggest issues in court, in religion, in the heart, in society. I didn’t bring up animal cruelty or maiming, nor did I bring up murder, since those were outside of the scope of the absolute. I don’t know anyone who would say that murder is OK (unless it’s related to war, in which case it’s justified differently – different conversation), nor do I know anyone who would torture another creature for his or her own pleasure. These people are called sociopaths in our culture.
I completely I agree with you that killing for survival or self-defense is not necessarily wrong, but even this has an enormous case-by-case gray area. Anyway, let’s call that horse dead and move on, shall we?
To your next point: “Well, what about the people who didn’t learn a skill that was beneficial to the tribe? What about the elderly people in the tribe who couldn’t contribute, or the maimed, or the mentally inferior? Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Were these people simply killed in the name of social advancement?” In some cases, yes. The Suruwahá Indians in the Amazon Basin of Brazil kill infants that have birth defects, if they are of multiple births, or even if they are of an undesired gender. The cursed babies are said to have no souls and are put to death. This tribe doesn’t preserve the lives of those that would be a drain on the tribe, they kill the infants; it’s part of their culture. It still goes on today with this particular tribe, although many in the tribe feel that it’s wrong. But it’s happening, right now, and there is evidence to support such a premise. “OK. I think we both agree that Moral Law exists.” Well, I agree that morality exists, but I’m not really comfortable calling it Moral Law. I know it might just be semantics, but this definition seems just a bit too…I don’t know…formal for me.
Moving on: “The question now seems to be: is Moral Law a social behavior we have learned and developed through necessity, or is it something altogether different – a real concrete truth that has always existed?” Does it have to be one or the other? Setting it up like this seems to imply that it is either social or divine. What if it’s neither? What if it’s an artifact of nature or some genetic construct that prevents or causes changes in human behavior? What if it’s part of Earth’s gaiaology? Now I’ve never really given much credence to the Gaia Hypothesis, but saying for the sake of argument that it exists, could morality be a physical manifestation of that gaiaology forcing us to act out kindness or cruelty for the sake of the planet’s overall health? Something to ponder.
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is altogether different than either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality.” The moment that you say one set of morals are better than another, you are generally guilty of ethnocentrism, which is a cultural bias that pretty much everyone on the planet is, has been, or will be guilty of. I’m not sure that I could ever presume to know what Real Morality is, because my definition of it would be my definition, just as yours would be yours. I can’t really say that I know what Real Morality is. Who the hell am I? I’m just some schlub who has a couple of brain cells he can rub together and hope for a synapse. Measuring them both by a standard even is far too presumptuous, in my opinion, because there is no standard. Just because I think something is right or good or just, doesn’t mean that it is.
Let’s say for instance I see someone being mistreated. Not really beaten but maybe just shaken around a bit or yelled at. My first thought, my first visceral instinct might be a strong desire to get in the person’s face and say “Hey asshole, what’s your problem? Why do you have to treat this person that way? How do you like it?” Then start throwing down. Would this be the right thing to do?
You compared morality to mathematics, Bill, but I know how to figure out the area of a square. What’s the area of a theft?
“You are admitting that there is such a thing as a Real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that Real Right than others.” Well yes and no. What I said was I believe in morality and we should be good to each other because it’s the right thing to do. “Think of it this way; if your moral ideas can be better or truer then those of the ancient Romans, then there must be something – some Real Morality – for them to be true about. In the same way - our perceptions of morality may differ, but it is a real thing none the less.” I see what you’re saying here, Bill, I do, but what I can’t agree with is that my moral sense is somehow inherently better than the Romans was just because it’s different. Different doesn’t make it better just because it’s different. That’s the kind of thinking that keeps people divided. I know that’s not what you’re trying to say – probably wasn’t even a subconscious mental implication – but I think a lot of people take the moral high ground when they look at the world. Who can say that anyone’s moral ideas are ‘better’ or ‘truer’ than theirs were? I guess I’m just having a hard time with the Real Morality being concretized; I’m just not ready to do that. I only know what’s right and wrong to me, and what my own moral ‘code’ is. I can’t really throw it up and judge anyone else’s against mine; I’m not nearly so venerable as all that.
I appreciate your apology for the wackos that have thrown hellfire and damnation in my face, Bill, but you don’t have to. You’re not responsible for their insecurity in their own faith and moral fiber. I could just as easily apologize for all of the people that have said mean things to you as a religious person, but zeal works in both directions.
I think fear and intolerance are just part of the human condition, unfortunately. Some people try so very hard to be nothing more than what they already are. Some, on the other hand, try to be a little bit more.
Thanks for bringing up the golden rule. I think it’s one of the best things that’s ever been invented by the thinking, moral mankind, and it’s shown up in nearly the same form in every religion or philosophy that we have a record of (Wait – did I just make your case?) the oldest of which (that I could find) from 3200 BC was from the Hindu Hitopadesa who said "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated." Apparently this guy was a fountain of morality and was quoted all of the time.
Bill’s Reply:
Some final thoughts: As far as the bible and it’s teaching of “Thou shalt not kill” is concerned, the word used for ‘kill’ in this instance is the Hebrew word ratsach which nearly always refers to intentional killing without a cause, or murder as we call it. The Hebrew language has many different words for ‘kill’. Some of the Hebrew words refer to accidental killing (nakah) and the killing of animals for food or sacrifice (shâchat). So, when the bible says Thou shalt not kill, it is saying you should not murder. It is not talking about accidentally taking a life or killing an animal for food.
The Suruwahá Indians that you mentioned are an interesting case. You said that the babies in this culture are killed because they have deformities or because they are of the wrong gender. You said “The cursed babies are said to have no souls and are put to death.” I think there is a misunderstanding here about the difference between morality and a belief of what some people think are the facts. Let me explain: A few hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Now, the reason we don’t execute people who claim to be witches today is because we don’t believe in such things. If we did – if we really thought that people had sold their souls to the devil and in return received supernatural powers and were using these powers to kill, then surely most people would agree that if anybody deserved the death penalty, it would be these individuals. There is no difference in moral principle here. The difference is simply about what is believed to be the facts. The people in old England believed that witches were real. Today, we don’t believe it. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches but there is no moral advance in not executing them when we don’t believe they actually exist. In the same way, if the Suruwahá Indians execute babies because they believe they are cursed, it would not be a moral advancement if they stopped doing it because they learned that these babies were not cursed. It would be an advance in knowledge but not an advance in morality.
As far as “ethnocentrism” is concerned, I agree that we have a tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of our own culture. And when we look closely we see moral differences that don’t sit well with us. But it seems to me that the moral theme of “Do as you would be done by” runs through all cultures, or at least to some degree it does. What we don’t see is “Do anything you want to do”.
You said “but what I can’t agree with is that my moral sense is somehow inherently better than the Romans was just because it’s different”. Well Tim, if your moral code gets closer to the theme of “Do unto others”, then I believe it is better then the Romans’ code.
Finally, in my opinion, there seems to be something above and beyond the ordinary facts of human behavior and it is quite real. It is a real law that none of us made but which we find pressing on us. And somehow we have the notion that we ought to obey it. Man ought to be unselfish and ought to be fair because, in the end, that is what moral law is all about.
Ooh, this is excellent, guys.
Bill’s Reply: In the first part of your reply you asked the (not so simple) question “Is it wrong to kill?” This is indeed a difficult question because the word “kill” has so many uses in English language. So, you are correct when you say the definition is not so easy to come by. But let me ask this question instead, “Is it wrong to murder?” This question is less complex in that the overwhelming majority of people would say yes. In the same way it would be wrong to practice animal cruelty as well (i.e., killing or maiming for no reason). Is it wrong to kill someone or something in self defense? I would say not. Is it wrong to kill an animal for the purpose of survival?
Most people would say that the Inuit woman you mentioned would not be violating any moral code of ethics because she was acting on the instinct of motherly love. The point I’m trying to make here is that there is a difference between morals and instincts. Murdering and animal cruelty have no instinctual basis where as things such as killing in self defense or killing for food are quite rooted in it. As far as “right and wrong as it applies to humans”, I would say that it ONLY applies to humans. There has never been a case that I have seen or heard of where an animal demonstrated moral ethics. The actions of an animal are based purely on instinct while human actions are based on instinct as well as moral principles.
In your reply you made the statement that: “Everyone learned that they had their own part to play. Every person was important to the survival of the whole after a while, because everyone started to develop their own skills.” Well, what about the people who didn’t learn a skill that was beneficial to the tribe? What about the elderly people in the tribe who couldn’t contribute, or the maimed, or the mentally inferior? Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Were these people simply killed in the name of social advancement? If it happened before recorded history we surely would not know it. There is no evidence to support such a premise. All I’m trying to do is look at the evidence as it presents itself. The evidence at hand would seem to suggest that there are things like compassion and kindness that often times tell us we ought to love and help these people, whether we want to or not. I don’t believe that it has anything to do with self preservation or the idea that we can’t live alone.
It seems to me that “what’s good for the tribe” or “social evolution” is unable to adequately justify giving “kindness” priority over personal well being. Or look at it another way; in our daily lives, cheating would often be more beneficial than truthfulness. On those occasions when we know we won't be caught, do we really refrain from cheating because we know, in the long run, society will be a better place because of our decision? The person who does this is an unusual person to say the least.
OK. I think we both agree that Moral Law exists. The question now seems to be: is Moral Law a social behavior we have learned and developed through necessity, or is it something altogether different – a real concrete truth that has always existed? Some of the things we have learned are mere conventions which might have been different. For example, we learn to drive on the right side of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to drive on the left. Other things, like mathematics, are real truths that we have been taught but did not make up. Mathematics is what it is and we could not have made it different if we liked. So, which class does Moral Law belong to? I believe it belongs to the same class as mathematics. One of the reasons I believe this is because, as I said before, even though there are differences between the moral ideas of one culture and another (one time and another), the differences are not really that great. Not nearly as great as most people imagine.
You can recognize the same theme running through them all. On the other hand, mere conventions, like the rules of the road or the clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. Another reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one culture and another, do you think that the morality of one culture is ever better or truer than that of another? If no set of moral ideas were better or truer than another, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality and there would be no moral progress. Progress doesn’t just mean to change; it means to change for the better. In fact, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. Well, ok then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is altogether different than either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality. You are admitting that there is such a thing as a Real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that Real Right than others. Think of it this way; if your moral ideas can be better or truer then those of the ancient Romans, then there must be something – some Real Morality – for them to be true about. To put it another way; the reason your idea of the United States can be more or less true then mine is because the United States is a real place. The USA exists, apart from what either of us thinks. In the same way - our perceptions of morality may differ, but it is a real thing none the less.
One quick note about the Roman civilization. You mentioned that many of the privileged people felt little or no guilt about doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. I agree with you that many people in that civilization did terrible things to one another. But the moral theme is still intact here. That moral theme is you can’t just do anything to anybody or be selfish in any circumstance you please. Although the Roman culture and others like them were corrupt, they still had the moral basics. To illustrate my point all we need to do is think of what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a culture where we were admired for cheating or running away in battle, or where people were proud of a man for double crossing all of his friends and family. We might as well try to imagine a culture where two plus two equals five.
At this point I would like to address the part of your reply in which you said that some Christians have approached you in the past, saying that you can’t be a law-abiding, decent person without the fear of going to Hell. Tim, my first response to this is “I’m sorry!” I’m sorry that you have been told this and that it made you angry. As a Christian myself, please accept my apologies for those who have approached you, or anybody else, with hatred or a self serving agenda. Secondly, I want to point out to you that this is not what the bible teaches. It would seem to me that the people who said these things to you have not researched the matter. If I heard fellow Christians saying these things, I would refer them to this verse in the bible:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” (Romans 2:14-15) Here, the apostle Paul is making reference to the fact that even though the Gentiles (non-Jews) didn’t have the laws of Moses to guide them, they still had laws written on their hearts. They had an internal guide so to speak. And this internal guide, I believe, is the Moral Law.
Toward the end of your reply you talked a good bit about the bible and Christianity. You said things like “The bible says this” and “Christians believe that”, and that the bible is read by many rather selectively. I agree with you that many people read only the bits of the bible that appeal to them and leave out the rest. That is why we don’t get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for different things can both say they are fighting for Christianity. So, I would say this – don’t judge the bible by what Christians do because people make mistakes, some big and some even bigger. Rather, judge the bible by what it says to do. Look at what the bible says and the context in which it says it. If you do this you will find the bible very solid. As far as critics are concerned, the bible is like an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It has taken a pounding and stood the test of time.
In regards to morality and the bible, the thing to understand is that the bible does not profess to teach any brand new morality. The Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is a summing up of what everyone, at bottom, has always known to be right. Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities – it’s quacks and crazy people who do that. In other words, people need to be reminded more than they need to be instructed. The real job of moral teaching is to keep bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles that we know to be right. You said it yourself when you said “I am a good person because it’s the right thing to do”. Well, why is it the right thing to do? There is something more than instinct at work here. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Now, for some final thoughts: As far as “what Christians believe” and the doctrine of Christian theology are concerned, I have not yet gotten within a hundred miles of that. All I have gotten to so far is that there seems to be a Power behind Moral Law and it is inside each of us, urging us to do the right thing and making us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong. At this point I don’t want to go completely into Christian beliefs. That is another subject altogether and I really hope we cover it and the Atheistic viewpoint in our up coming discussions. But for now I will say this: In the end, Christianity is quite comforting but it does not begin there. If there is a Power behind the Moral Law then, as far as I know, Christianity is the only thing that offers us any kind of explanation about it. It explains how the demands of Moral Law, which we all seem unable to meet, have been met on our behalf. Christianity does not really begin to make sense until we realize that there is a Moral Law and that we have broken it and put ourselves at odds with the Power behind it.
Tim’s Reply: You bring up some good points and, of course, there is a difference between murder and killing. There is a difference between self-defense and cruelty; there is a difference between sport and survival. I was pointing out with this example the nature of absolutes. The bees were another example. For most there is an enormous gray area, as there should be, and to make a commandment like “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is something that is all at once so absolute yet still so vague, it is absolutely impossible for ANY creature to follow.
I deliberately left my question open-ended like that when I asked: “is it wrong to kill?” because this is the one of the biggest moral issues that affects the Human species. This is one of the biggest issues in court, in religion, in the heart, in society. I didn’t bring up animal cruelty or maiming, nor did I bring up murder, since those were outside of the scope of the absolute. I don’t know anyone who would say that murder is OK (unless it’s related to war, in which case it’s justified differently – different conversation), nor do I know anyone who would torture another creature for his or her own pleasure. These people are called sociopaths in our culture.
I completely I agree with you that killing for survival or self-defense is not necessarily wrong, but even this has an enormous case-by-case gray area. Anyway, let’s call that horse dead and move on, shall we?
To your next point: “Well, what about the people who didn’t learn a skill that was beneficial to the tribe? What about the elderly people in the tribe who couldn’t contribute, or the maimed, or the mentally inferior? Preserving the lives of these individuals causes a drain on the resources of society and in no way enhances the survivability of the human race. Were these people simply killed in the name of social advancement?” In some cases, yes. The Suruwahá Indians in the Amazon Basin of Brazil kill infants that have birth defects, if they are of multiple births, or even if they are of an undesired gender. The cursed babies are said to have no souls and are put to death. This tribe doesn’t preserve the lives of those that would be a drain on the tribe, they kill the infants; it’s part of their culture. It still goes on today with this particular tribe, although many in the tribe feel that it’s wrong. But it’s happening, right now, and there is evidence to support such a premise. “OK. I think we both agree that Moral Law exists.” Well, I agree that morality exists, but I’m not really comfortable calling it Moral Law. I know it might just be semantics, but this definition seems just a bit too…I don’t know…formal for me.
Moving on: “The question now seems to be: is Moral Law a social behavior we have learned and developed through necessity, or is it something altogether different – a real concrete truth that has always existed?” Does it have to be one or the other? Setting it up like this seems to imply that it is either social or divine. What if it’s neither? What if it’s an artifact of nature or some genetic construct that prevents or causes changes in human behavior? What if it’s part of Earth’s gaiaology? Now I’ve never really given much credence to the Gaia Hypothesis, but saying for the sake of argument that it exists, could morality be a physical manifestation of that gaiaology forcing us to act out kindness or cruelty for the sake of the planet’s overall health? Something to ponder.
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is altogether different than either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality.” The moment that you say one set of morals are better than another, you are generally guilty of ethnocentrism, which is a cultural bias that pretty much everyone on the planet is, has been, or will be guilty of. I’m not sure that I could ever presume to know what Real Morality is, because my definition of it would be my definition, just as yours would be yours. I can’t really say that I know what Real Morality is. Who the hell am I? I’m just some schlub who has a couple of brain cells he can rub together and hope for a synapse. Measuring them both by a standard even is far too presumptuous, in my opinion, because there is no standard. Just because I think something is right or good or just, doesn’t mean that it is.
Let’s say for instance I see someone being mistreated. Not really beaten but maybe just shaken around a bit or yelled at. My first thought, my first visceral instinct might be a strong desire to get in the person’s face and say “Hey asshole, what’s your problem? Why do you have to treat this person that way? How do you like it?” Then start throwing down. Would this be the right thing to do?
You compared morality to mathematics, Bill, but I know how to figure out the area of a square. What’s the area of a theft?
“You are admitting that there is such a thing as a Real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that Real Right than others.” Well yes and no. What I said was I believe in morality and we should be good to each other because it’s the right thing to do. “Think of it this way; if your moral ideas can be better or truer then those of the ancient Romans, then there must be something – some Real Morality – for them to be true about. In the same way - our perceptions of morality may differ, but it is a real thing none the less.” I see what you’re saying here, Bill, I do, but what I can’t agree with is that my moral sense is somehow inherently better than the Romans was just because it’s different. Different doesn’t make it better just because it’s different. That’s the kind of thinking that keeps people divided. I know that’s not what you’re trying to say – probably wasn’t even a subconscious mental implication – but I think a lot of people take the moral high ground when they look at the world. Who can say that anyone’s moral ideas are ‘better’ or ‘truer’ than theirs were? I guess I’m just having a hard time with the Real Morality being concretized; I’m just not ready to do that. I only know what’s right and wrong to me, and what my own moral ‘code’ is. I can’t really throw it up and judge anyone else’s against mine; I’m not nearly so venerable as all that.
I appreciate your apology for the wackos that have thrown hellfire and damnation in my face, Bill, but you don’t have to. You’re not responsible for their insecurity in their own faith and moral fiber. I could just as easily apologize for all of the people that have said mean things to you as a religious person, but zeal works in both directions.
I think fear and intolerance are just part of the human condition, unfortunately. Some people try so very hard to be nothing more than what they already are. Some, on the other hand, try to be a little bit more.
Thanks for bringing up the golden rule. I think it’s one of the best things that’s ever been invented by the thinking, moral mankind, and it’s shown up in nearly the same form in every religion or philosophy that we have a record of (Wait – did I just make your case?) the oldest of which (that I could find) from 3200 BC was from the Hindu Hitopadesa who said "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated." Apparently this guy was a fountain of morality and was quoted all of the time.
Bill’s Reply:
Some final thoughts: As far as the bible and it’s teaching of “Thou shalt not kill” is concerned, the word used for ‘kill’ in this instance is the Hebrew word ratsach which nearly always refers to intentional killing without a cause, or murder as we call it. The Hebrew language has many different words for ‘kill’. Some of the Hebrew words refer to accidental killing (nakah) and the killing of animals for food or sacrifice (shâchat). So, when the bible says Thou shalt not kill, it is saying you should not murder. It is not talking about accidentally taking a life or killing an animal for food.
The Suruwahá Indians that you mentioned are an interesting case. You said that the babies in this culture are killed because they have deformities or because they are of the wrong gender. You said “The cursed babies are said to have no souls and are put to death.” I think there is a misunderstanding here about the difference between morality and a belief of what some people think are the facts. Let me explain: A few hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Now, the reason we don’t execute people who claim to be witches today is because we don’t believe in such things. If we did – if we really thought that people had sold their souls to the devil and in return received supernatural powers and were using these powers to kill, then surely most people would agree that if anybody deserved the death penalty, it would be these individuals. There is no difference in moral principle here. The difference is simply about what is believed to be the facts. The people in old England believed that witches were real. Today, we don’t believe it. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches but there is no moral advance in not executing them when we don’t believe they actually exist. In the same way, if the Suruwahá Indians execute babies because they believe they are cursed, it would not be a moral advancement if they stopped doing it because they learned that these babies were not cursed. It would be an advance in knowledge but not an advance in morality.
As far as “ethnocentrism” is concerned, I agree that we have a tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of our own culture. And when we look closely we see moral differences that don’t sit well with us. But it seems to me that the moral theme of “Do as you would be done by” runs through all cultures, or at least to some degree it does. What we don’t see is “Do anything you want to do”.
You said “but what I can’t agree with is that my moral sense is somehow inherently better than the Romans was just because it’s different”. Well Tim, if your moral code gets closer to the theme of “Do unto others”, then I believe it is better then the Romans’ code.
Finally, in my opinion, there seems to be something above and beyond the ordinary facts of human behavior and it is quite real. It is a real law that none of us made but which we find pressing on us. And somehow we have the notion that we ought to obey it. Man ought to be unselfish and ought to be fair because, in the end, that is what moral law is all about.
Ooh, this is excellent, guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment