Another one I like to bite on...

Lance on morality...

I have grabbed this from Grandpa John because it highlights a number of moral issues, but then in my opinion ignores some of the obvious answers.

"Let's assume there are two possibilities: God exists and has laid down rules for us; or there is no God and we, humans, are the highest power in existence.

Under the second possibility, there is no absolute basis for morality: there is only what we decide.

In a comment to a previous post, Grandpa John wrote: "As a social species, morality is part of our 'natural instincts' just as with the other social species. Our problem is our 'higher intellegence' allows us to override our natural instincts."

I don't see it quite that way: our natural instincts aren't moral, and it's our higher intelligence that allows us to override those instincts and to act in a moral way.

We've evolved a society that is based on morality, because it's in all of our self-interests to have certain standards.

But, if morality is only what we, humans, say it is, then the only limit on what I can do is whatever I can get away with. The only penalties for lying, cheating, and stealing are earthly ones - therefore, if I can get away with it, or if the potential penalties are worth the rewards, I might as well do it. I might as well go ahead and sleep with the woman I meet at a conference in Seattle. Without God, there is no incentive for me to avoid temptation.

The other possibility, that God exists and wants us to follow certain rules, gives me an incentive to be a good boy that doesn't exist otherwise. The standard is no longer "whatever I can get away with."

There's already an awful lot of corruption in our society. It would be interesting to compare reality to a completely atheist society, and to a completely Christian society. How's that alternate universe transporter coming? "

Well, there you are. That has all of the arguments of Aristotle and the other ancient Greeks in one small passage. I will say this much, the author would not last long in Athens of 300 BC, that much is certain. Why? Well it is relatively simple but not a short path.

First, the debates of the ancients on the nature of "virtue" and the relationship between intellect, reason, and the place of the individual in society centred upon whether those virtues were "innate" - i.e. within the person at birth - or "learned" - i.e. that a person without honour and virtue could be educated to embody those traits. The argument continues today in the "nature or nurture" debates in the realms of psychology etc. But I am not going to follow that particular path here. I am not a deconstructionist any more than I am a psychologist.

The point that I do want to pick out here is that I believe the Greeks separated the virtues from the creation of man. They were (as I read the various commentaries and translations) far more the qualifications that a person needed in order to remain or be accepted as a functioning member of society. It is (as I think that Pythagorus is quoted as saying) that a man (person) without virtue is little better than a beast. As a corollary, if he should act like a beast then he should be treated in similar fashion.

So, if I return to the passage above and might comment upon how I hear (I note this is getting close to deconstructionism) what is being said...

"There are two possibilities..." There is a third. That is that God put us here with the intention that we should form our own way, that we should form our own society, that we should (as the ancient Greeks did) seek our own personal virtues.

"There is no absolute authority..." Absolutely. I take full responsibility for my own actions. There is no devil to make me do it, there is no god to stop me, there is only myself. If I should diminish myself through my own actions then I can blame no one. Only I can increase the standing of my own person, and that through my own actions..

" We've evolved a society that is based on morality, because it's in all of our self-interests to have certain standards." Undebatable. Taking the very wide view, there are as many "moralities" as there are religions, there are as many civilisations as there are religions. What does this tell us? Simply that every society by one means or another develops a set of rules or virtues which must be observed by every person in that society. Who is to say that one system is wrong, less moral, that another is right, more moral? Morality, rule of law, responsibility to society, call it what you want. There are people in this world who want to take it out in their search of "total freedom". There are two places where this is available to them. Iraq and Somalia. You might add Sudan, it depends upon whose side you are on. Let them take themselves to those parts; to experience for themselves; just exactly what that means.

But, if morality is only what we, humans, say it is, then the only limit on what I can do is whatever I can get away with. The only penalties for lying, cheating, and stealing are earthly ones - therefore, if I can get away with it, or if the potential penalties are worth the rewards, I might as well do it. I might as well go ahead and sleep with the woman I meet at a conference in Seattle. Without God, there is no incentive for me to avoid temptation.

This is where I completely part company with the author. The intention of the words here is clear. I totally disagree with what he is saying.

First, forever and a day, morality is and always will be what we, humans, say it is.... Yes I know all about the tradition and mythology of the "Word of God" and all that. I look to other civilisations, the Greeks, the Japanese, Bhuddist, Hindu, Chinese, Islam; there are so many... All of those civilisations survived and in many cases still survive despite the fact that they are NOT, NEVER WERE, Judeo/Christian. They have also in some cases survived for far longer than the two millenia of the "Christian" civilisation.

Second, the "penalties will only ever be earthly ones". Debateable. Both the Hindu and Bhuddist faiths have reincarnation based upon action and "virtue" in the current life. Are they wrong? How do you know? I certainly do not. Nor is my ignorance a problem for me. I am here to do the best that I am humanly able to achieve. If I can die with the knowledge I have in some small way succeeded then I will die happy.

Third, "without God, there is no incentive for me to avoid temptation..." Well, I ask you. What manner of person does that make you? Responsible? No. You believe that your god is in some way responsible for what you do. If that fails then your anti-god is responsible instead. Honourable? No. Your "honour" is based upon your ability to be unfaithful to your wife and get away with it. Virtuous? Never. You have no virtue. You are the equivalent of the beasts.

" Our problem is our 'higher intellegence' allows us to override our natural instincts." Yes, that is why we consider ourselves to be "better" than beasts.

Why did God (if you want to continue the line of thought) give us an intellect? Was it so that the intellect would lead to evil? That is what this piece argues. The "original sin" - was it disobedience to a vengeful god, or was it achieving intellect and hence transcending the realm of beasts?

The line of reasoning DOES NOT PROVE TO ME that religion ( and I infer from the tone of this that the author is speaking specifically of only one religion) is the only acceptable basis for society.

To be quite honest, it proves the contrary. To follow the logic of this piece of writing, the author's religion would seem to be the only "incentive" - yes he used the word - he has for acting with any kind of morality.

Perhaps, before the author gets too far down the path he is on, he should look to those who are considered liars ("I did not have sexual relations...") , corrupt ("I had no knowledge of, nor approved, any break-in..."), cheats (What DID Jack Kennedy think of Marilyn), stealing (How about a certain televangelist) and ask them what religion they follow?

I agree with his last thought - bring on the machine that accesses alternative universes; let's find a society that has honour and virtue earned and not god-granted or where action against fellow man is not god forgiven; let's find that society where a person is respected for what he does and what he achieves himself for the benefit of society, and not for his ability to spout large tracts of mythology and superstition or claim the personal support and rights of a god.

My own feelings on the matter?

That intellect and the concept of virtue are inseparable. Lose one and you lose the other. So if, as the author proposes, a person acts without virtue then they are demonstrating a lower level of intellect than a person who does not follow the same path.

THAT has nothing to do with religion.



As a postscript, I have just been listening to the first of three radio documentaries on Pitcairn Island. There has been considerable local interest (some I admit has been a little purient) in the island in recent times since Britain (as the administrators of the island) announced that 7 men on the island would be charged with criminal rape and indecency crimes against girls as young as 12 years under British law. It was announced today that all except one have been found guilty. The seven men are from a total island population of 47. Those found guilty include three of the island leaders.

I am making a direct link to the post from Lance above and my commentary on the basis that -

The island is so remote that it is a "social laboratory".

The island is Christian ( I will not mention the particular variety as that is in my mind immaterial ).

They claim (or some do) that the practice of sexual intercourse with girls of 12 is cultural and traditional practice.



Given Lance's logic on morality, I can but wonder at how he might rationalise a "community" morality like this.