Ship of Fools: Morality and religion

Thread: Morality and religion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027462

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Listening to a CBC discussion about apparently-moral conduct among various groups of monkeys, I tangented off into something that has been bothering me for some time.

Almost all of the named religions have, as one guiding principle, the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Jesus goes a bit further than many when He says that you have to love your enemy, which takes more effort, obviously, but the principle is only deepened, not changed). Even groupings of agnostics or atheists will subscribe to that particular statement as a desirable one.

But this is overlaid with the various interpretations imposed by the religious groups, in terms of their beliefs about the nature of the supernatural entity that they follow. This, in turn, makes the Golden Rule impossible to follow, because it would involve treating those "outside the club" as if they were equally important in the Eye of God.

The person being interviewed said that every society known had the Golden Rule at its heart, and that this emphasised that humans have a basic moral instinct. Of course, he added, every society up to the present has also had a Divine Being (or whatever)at its center, but we are now seeing societies that are not religious, as people fall away from being part of overtly-religious groups.

Those societies may have religious principles embedded in their laws, but the religious component may make it difficult to further the moral imperatives to improve those societies. The battle to obtain equal human status for women, for instance, is noisily opposed by many religious on what would appear to be false arguments from the "Second-Great-Commandment" POV.

Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion?

Please don't argue that atheists are necessarily immoral, BTW. Rational argument can occur in forming moral views, and the specific nature of a given Deity may not be helpful to those who are not "in the club". In the past, disagreement with the formal religionists has often been fatal, and you can't build a modern society on the basis that everyone agrees on the specific nature of a given Deity. Open discussion in our communication-saturated societies is an absolute necessity, and religious blinkers prevent discussion.

How does one get religionists to allow for the idea that the "other" people have the right to simply exist even if they don't belong to the club?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Horseman Bree;

quote:
Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion?

Do you mean 'completely without', or are you envisaging a pluralist situation of many different beliefs, religious and otherwise, existing together?

by HB;

quote:
Please don't argue that atheists are necessarily immoral, BTW.

In view of the following, for which atheist Richard Dawkins was responsible, not me, I might want to suggest that atheist morality might have problems. (note that the problem here is not just in the 'lack of purpose' aspect, but also in the implied determinism of human conduct in that purposeless universe.)

quote:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference … DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is. And we dance to its music”.

by HB;

quote:
How does one get religionists to allow for the idea that the "other" people have the right to simply exist even if they don't belong to the club?

In most cases you don't because most religions have been founded as 'national' religions or with an aim of being so – e.g., Shinto in Japan, or Islam with its concept of the 'Umma'. The association, or would-be association, with the state tends to produce intolerance and coercion. The two exceptions among what we might call 'classical religions' would seem to be Buddhism and Christianity in their original forms.

Buddhism is originally a non-state religion, as I understand it, because of its doctrine that the physical world is an illusion anyway.

Christianity, according to the NT, is supposed to be a non-state religion because becoming a Christian involves being 'born again'. Therefore a state religion is effectively impossible because the whole point of Christianity is to create a plural society. (that's the short version, just to get the discussion started).

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Re: status of religion: I'm assuming for the argument that religious groups move to the level of other interest groups: no special privilege, but not outlawed either. For many people, religious groups are more like a club than they are a political movement.

Whether DNA knows anything or not, it is still possible for beings with thought processes to work out ethical or moral positions (as was shown by the group behaviour of rhesus monkeys and bonobos in the discussion I heard) Being disdainful of atheistic positions is just another way of saying that they don't really know anything anyway, so why listen.

I think you should check the political position of the CofE in your own country (refounded in order to provide a stable political operation after Bloody Mary, and again after the Civil War (both of which situations had religious interactions). And I am sure there are many citizens of the US who are worried about the political overtones of the religious right demanding that America be turned into a "Christian" state. Then we move on to the political overtones of the violent imposition of Sharia Law (however badly understood it it) in various countries and the intertribal fighting between Buddhist factions. Are you allowed to be overtly Christian in several countries of the near/Middle East?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Horseman Bree;

quote:
Re: status of religion: I'm assuming for the argument that religious groups move to the level of other interest groups: no special privilege, but not outlawed either. For many people, religious groups are more like a club than they are a political movement.

Fine; as I read the NT that is how it says Christianity should be, though of course any religion will be rather more important in its implications than most other 'clubs'

by HB;

quote:
Whether DNA knows anything or not, it is still possible for beings with thought processes to work out ethical or moral positions (as was shown by the group behaviour of rhesus monkeys and bonobos in the discussion I heard) Being disdainful of atheistic positions is just another way of saying that they don't really know anything anyway, so why listen.

I'm not, I think, being 'disdainful'; just quoting as a fact that even atheist leaders like Dawkins are saying things which present problems, and in the particular case, I haven't yet read anything from Dawkins which resolves those difficulties. As I said, it's Dawkins' position not mine. I am 'listening' to him, and I find myself agreeing that as far as atheism goes, he is right - 'there is... no good and no evil'. Fortunately I don't have to agree with him that atheism is right.

by HB;

quote:
I think you should check the political position of the CofE in your own country ...

I checked that out long ago; and found it doesn't measure up to what the NT says Christianity should be, and the position the NT says Christians should adopt towards the surrounding society. All the various forms of 'Christian country', including the not-quite-establishment of the USA, are based on disregarding the NT at this point. Original Christianity is different.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Unless the morality is "felt" (in which case it is not morality, it is an experience) then everything is up for grabs according to whatever is acceptable to the majority and whatever can be argued for intellectually.

As living beings, our physiology is most efficient when we are in a loving, appreciative state - I think that says a lot.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Just citing Dawkins' 'no good and no evil' is a bit one-sided, I think. Lots of atheists have argued for human morality, and also, monkey morality, I suppose.

Other people matter to me, whether or not God exists, surely?

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

There is a Natural Law argument. This suggests that there is a set of moral values which can be deduced by reason alone apart from revelation. Wherever reason operates this Natural Law can be discerned and given concrete form in the shape of the laws and behavioral norms of individual societies. However, there is a higher and more perfect set of moral values which cannot be deduced by reason alone and these form the content of divine revelation. So, we can have a 'good enough' standard without religion and a 'best possible' standard with it.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

HB:

quote:
Listening to a CBC discussion about apparently-moral conduct among various groups of monkeys,

I think a lot hinges on what you mean by "moral". I suspect this is one of many words where we're all sure what we mean, but we don't mean the same thing, making debate tricky.

Can you define what you mean by a "moral" lifestyle? I'm not being deliberately thick, but I suspect that the reason many christians say that atheism is inherently amoral, which you object to, is simply that they have a different definition of morality.

To many such, morality is similar to legality, in that it is based on objective principles and rules, with God as the definer and enforcer. No atheist will buy this, I think.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Quetzalcoatl;

quote:
Just citing Dawkins' 'no good and no evil' is a bit one-sided, I think. Lots of atheists have argued for human morality, and also, monkey morality, I suppose.

Other people matter to me, whether or not God exists, surely?

As I said, the 'sting' in Dawkins is that he not only teaches a purposeless universe in which morality becomes difficult to define, he also teaches a physical determinism in which we don't have any real moral responsibility, we just 'dance to the tune of' not only our DNA but other physical and chemical reactions which are also purposeless and amoral. Thankfully most atheists do nevertheless have a sense of morality - but I would submit that in that position they are being somewhat inconsistent to what they claim are their fundamental beliefs about the world.

That you care about others just might be evidence (though I concede not in itself conclusive) that there is more to the world than Dawkins says there is.

NT-wise it appears not to be the 'job' of Christianity in the world to impose our morality on others, but to be an independent example of a better way.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

How does one get religionists to allow for the idea that the "other" people have the right to simply exist even if they don't belong to the club?

By emphasizing that they are created by God and made in the image of God. All human beings require dignity and respect.

My religion (Anglican) does this very well in my neck of the woods and the Catholics do it too.

Like anteater, I'm also curious as to how monkey's develop morality. Please explain?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion

Sure they could. The appeals to authority would just be different. They would still require a framework of ethical standards and right and wrong behaviours but they'd have to make them up as they went along.

The golden rule is a rule but it's just a very lite framework. What it means to treat others as you would like yourself to be treated would have to be filled in because no doubt everyone would have a different opinion on the details.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Almost all of the named religions have, as one guiding principle, the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Jesus goes a bit further than many when He says that you have to love your enemy, which takes more effort, obviously, but the principle is only deepened, not changed). Even groupings of agnostics or atheists will subscribe to that particular statement as a desirable one.

There are all sorts of problems with treating the Golden Rule as sufficient for morality. It's possible to adjust the 'as you would have them treat you' bit just as much as the other. For example, if you believe society is a war of all against all then treating other people as you would have them treat you will result in you being philosophical about things if you lose, but won't make you any less likely to fight.

Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?

quote:
But this is overlaid with the various interpretations imposed by the religious groups, in terms of their beliefs about the nature of the supernatural entity that they follow. This, in turn, makes the Golden Rule impossible to follow, because it would involve treating those "outside the club" as if they were equally important in the Eye of God.

The last sentence does not follow from the previous sentences.

quote:
The person being interviewed said that every society known had the Golden Rule at its heart

For a suitably vague definition of 'at its heart'.

quote:
Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion?

It all rather depends on how you define formal religion. For a suitable defintion, there have already been societies that have done so.

quote:
Please don't argue that atheists are necessarily immoral, BTW. Rational argument can occur in forming moral views, and the specific nature of a given Deity may not be helpful to those who are not "in the club".

Are we allowed to mention that secular philosophy has so far failed to find a rational standard for morality that commands widespread adherence? That's not the same as saying that atheists are necessarily immoral.
(Compare:
Religious belief makes it more difficult to treat outsiders as equals.
Religious believers necessarily treat outsiders as unequal.)

quote:
Open discussion in our communication-saturated societies is an absolute necessity, and religious blinkers prevent discussion.

Are religious blinkers the only type that there are?

quote:
How does one get religionists to allow for the idea that the "other" people have the right to simply exist even if they don't belong to the club?

You don't. We're all champing at the bit to wipe out everyone who disagrees with us.

It's generally a good idea to realise that if for you 'religionists' are the "other", and if you believe in the Golden Rule, then you set the standard for how you want 'religionists' to talk about you by how you talk about 'religionists'.

[ 28. July 2014, 12:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Quetzalcoatl;

quote:
Just citing Dawkins' 'no good and no evil' is a bit one-sided, I think. Lots of atheists have argued for human morality, and also, monkey morality, I suppose.

Other people matter to me, whether or not God exists, surely?
As I said, the 'sting' in Dawkins is that he not only teaches a purposeless universe in which morality becomes difficult to define, he also teaches a physical determinism in which we don't have any real moral responsibility, we just 'dance to the tune of' not only our DNA but other physical and chemical reactions which are also purposeless and amoral. Thankfully most atheists do nevertheless have a sense of morality - but I would submit that in that position they are being somewhat inconsistent to what they claim are their fundamental beliefs about the world.

That you care about others just might be evidence (though I concede not in itself conclusive) that there is more to the world than Dawkins says there is.

NT-wise it appears not to be the 'job' of Christianity in the world to impose our morality on others, but to be an independent example of a better way.

Well, I just meant that I would not take Dawkins as an exemplar of a moral philosopher who is an atheist!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would ground morality in human psychology; but no doubt, there are many different kinds of moral philosophy amongst atheists.

Incidentally, I think monkeys are credited with a proto-morality; I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that they have ethical discussions like humans. But in the words of the primatologist Frans de Waal, monkeys and apes:

"just like us, strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation".

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I said, the 'sting' in Dawkins is that he not only teaches a purposeless universe in which morality becomes difficult to define ...

I think I need a definition of morality. I've always seen it as being about, in some way, improving life now and not screwing it up for our successors. I see no reason why the universe having a purpose should come into that.

[Dawkins] also teaches a physical determinism in which we don't have any real moral responsibility, we just 'dance to the tune of' not only our DNA but other physical and chemical reactions which are also purposeless and amoral. Thankfully most atheists do nevertheless have a sense of morality - but I would submit that in that position they are being somewhat inconsistent to what they claim are their fundamental beliefs about the world.

We may believe we have moral responsibility even if the world is deterministic. If everything is determined then our beliefs are also and we cannot choose what we believe. So we (or maybe only some of us) will continue to believe in moral responsibility. It will be inconsistent but I doubt if we're the only ones with inconsistent in our fundamental beliefs.

If I believe I have chosen something for moral reasons, and I perform appropriate actions and good things ensue, would you say I was not being moral because I had no freewill and/or because my belief was wrong. I say ask the recipient of of my actions how it seemed to them - did they care that my belief in moral responsibility was wrong?

That you care about others just might be evidence (though I concede not in itself conclusive) that there is more to the world than Dawkins says there is.

And if we didn't care about others we might well never have survived long enough as a species to be here discussing it.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The golden rule is a rule but it's just a very lite framework. What it means to treat others as you would like yourself to be treated would have to be filled in because no doubt everyone would have a different opinion on the details.

This seems to me the most worthwhile approach to ethics. At the every least I'd take as a corollary Kant's point that you must never treat another person solely as a means to attain your ends.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?
...

That's written as though you do not think the second follows automatically from the first. Can you explain why?

If we reverse the sequence, if you believe that a vegetarian is not obliged to serve the meat-eater with meat, what reason would exist why you could maintain that a meat-eater is obliged to provide the vegetarian with not-meat?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm interested in the internal vs external morality concept espoused by some. ISTM, the external threat forces compliance, not enhances morality.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Incidentally, I think monkeys are credited with a proto-morality

Proto? What disqualifies it from ours, our rationalisation of morality? If this is true, many people have proto-morality.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
lilBuddha: Proto? What disqualifies it from ours, our rationalisation of morality? If this is true, many people have proto-morality.

I'm not sure if the suffix 'proto-' implies a disqualification.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion?

I thought we already had - things like the United Nations operate on shared human values.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm interested in the internal vs external morality concept espoused by some. ISTM, the external threat forces compliance, not enhances morality.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Incidentally, I think monkeys are credited with a proto-morality
Proto? What disqualifies it from ours, our rationalisation of morality? If this is true, many people have proto-morality.

I'm not sure about your 'disqualifies' here. I suppose de Waal is saying that monkeys don't have a fully fledged ethical system, and certainly not a meta-ethics, but then you may be right that some humans don't.

I like his comment that humans like keeping 'furry carnivores' in their houses, because they are affectionate, bond easily, show empathy, and have a sense of fairness - well, not sure about cats!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Rather a succinct quote from de Waal:

“[Primates] strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today.”

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a Natural Law argument. This suggests that there is a set of moral values which can be deduced by reason alone apart from revelation. Wherever reason operates this Natural Law can be discerned and given concrete form in the shape of the laws and behavioral norms of individual societies.

Would you agree that these behaviours developed from behaviours which increased the species' survival chances?

quote:
However, there is a higher and more perfect set of moral values which cannot be deduced by reason alone and these form the content of divine revelation.

On what basis do you define them as 'higher' and [more perfect, and how do you decide that they cannot be deduced by reason alone?

quote:
So, we can have a 'good enough' standard without religion and a 'best possible' standard with it.

I don't agree with that! I think that if you and I compared our moral values and behaviours, they'd be very similar!! [Smile]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I think Lewis said it all best in The Abolition of Man.

I also have no problem with the idea that apes and other animals reflect, in their own ways and especially imperfectly in this fallen, broken world (till the New Creation, when the lion shall lie down with the lamb), goodness, and may even have some kind of spirituality and moral sense, though not at all identical to ours.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think Lewis said it all best in The Abolition of Man.

I also have no problem with the idea that apes and other animals reflect, in their own ways and especially imperfectly in this fallen, broken world (till the New Creation, when the lion shall lie down with the lamb), goodness, and may even have some kind of spirituality and moral sense, though not at all identical to ours.

What does 'best' mean?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What does 'best' mean?

I'm genuinely not sure what you're asking. [Confused]

I think Lewis is right when he talks about there being a moral law/sense of right-and-wrong/etc. that people in some way know across cultures, time and space, though none of us really have it perfectly, and there can be moral improvement (and regression). (He also says it vastly better than I can!)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What does 'best' mean?
I'm genuinely not sure what you're asking. I think Lewis is right when he talks about there being a moral law/sense of right-and-wrong/etc. that people in some way know across cultures, time and space, though none of us really have it perfectly, and there can be moral improvement (and regression). (He also says it vastly better than I can!)

Well, I guess that you think that this is imbued in the human being by God at birth? Is that right?

But do you think also that it is imbued in animals? Obviously, de Waal's arguments are connected with evolution, (so that 'proto-morality' is really the precursor of human morality), but that is not in itself an anti-theism point, of course.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

Can you define what you mean by a "moral" lifestyle?

Conforming to the unexamined assumptions of Western liberalism, I'd guess.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I guess that you think that this is imbued in the human being by God at birth? Is that right?

Exactly how it works, especially as regards the distinction between our brains' knowledge on a physical level, and spiritual perceptions, I don't know. For that matter I don't know that it would be as late as birth!

quote:
But do you think also that it is imbued in animals?

Well, certainly we are told in Christian theology that God loves and takes care of all of Creation--and that all of Creation waits in travail like a pregnant woman for the new world to come--which would include animals. How animal consciousness--as well as the consciousness or souls or whatnot (which need not be completely identical!) of every single thing in Creation (organic, inorganic, corporeal, incorporeal, possibly combinations thereof)--works, I don't know. I see no reason to think it's not there as well, and certainly things like the behavior of apes above would suggest that it's written on their hearts as well, though since it's in a language humans can't read very well, it's hard to tell exactly how they perceive it (and, again, consciously or on a spiritual level).

quote:
Obviously, de Waal's arguments are connected with evolution, (so that 'proto-morality' is really the precursor of human morality), but that is not in itself an anti-theism point, of course.

Agreed!

I believe in evolution (which... should go without saying but alas it doesn't always).

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sorry to be slow responding, I've had a couple of unexpectedly busy days.

I deliberately did not define "morality", leaving it in the general sense of An understood code of behaviour which keeps most members (ideally all) in a safe and relatively comfortable life"

Re: monkey morality: The rhesus monkeys in the study exhibited a definite ability to do "good" things for other members of the tribe, things which were not merely for the purposes of the doer - helping an elderly, crippled female to get to the water supply, for instance. This exhibits that there is some form of moral code involving the members of that tribe.

Re: Golden Rule: obviously, there is more to it than one statement. I was just pointing out that that particular statement was common to just about every identifiable group of humans as a desirable idea, whatever form of deity they do or do not recognise. Is it possible to develop a code that has that idea at or near the basis? ISTM that the groups of atheists who are not "doing a Dawkins" in the hope of annoying everyone are working forward from that idea as they formulate their positions.

Dawkins is no more representative of atheists than is, say, ABp(ret) Carey. How about dealing with what atheists and agnostics say on a broader scale? Lord knows, there are a lot of them, including many who are actually working things out.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: Golden Rule: obviously, there is more to it than one statement. I was just pointing out that that particular statement was common to just about every identifiable group of humans as a desirable idea, whatever form of deity they do or do not recognise. Is it possible to develop a code that has that idea at or near the basis?

Of course it is. There's utilitarianism. There's Kantianism. There's the Rawlsian variant on Kantianism. To mention only the best known.
The problem is that while they all arguably fulfil the Golden Rule, they're incompatible.

(Kant pointed out that on a naive interpretation of the Golden Rule, it's immoral to incarcerate criminals. That looks unsatisfactory as a practical ethical basis for society.)

But most groups of humans recognise it as a desirable idea? I've seen this said, but, aside from lists of prooftexts from various thinkers, what exactly is the evidence for that? For example, I've seen something like it prooftexted from Aristotle, but it doesn't play any kind of role in Aristotle's ethics.

The fundamental problem here is that if it's found in most societies it must be in some sense compatible with a wide range of ethical codes, some rather less liberal than others. Can a principle that is allegedly accepted by both the Aztecs and the Jains be anything more than a banality at that level of generality?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

@OP

I heard the same CBC program and was very interested. I understood from some of it that we have constructed our view of evolution in the animal world based on our view of economics, with the excessive focus on competition. There are apparently hard-wired and inherited characteristics that indicate that altruism, kindness and sharing are also part of our evolutionary past. The chimps and bonobos show these along with competition and aggression.

Thus innate characteristics that are indeed about moral behaviour. It is the structure of our genetics. Which I find exciting. It might mean that morality is wired into more than just us and the monkeys.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:

Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?

That misses the point twice, I suspect deliberately.

Firstly, a positive conviction is different from a habit. Unless the meat eater is a meat eater because they MUST eat meat for a specific (e.g. medical or religious) reason at every meal - in which case they should be aware that not everyone has meat in their larder. Exactly the same as people with e.g. glutren intolerance often carry their own food around because they can't guarantee that they will be able to find edible food wherever they go.

Secondly, "do unto others" is not about trivial habits or even relatively minor convictions, but about honouring this human being in front of you as a another valuable part of creation - equally as valuable as yourself, who is deserving of respect.

I find street beggars particularly difficult in this regard, because the "do unto others" requires us to do our best to act in the other persons best interests. Is the beggar doing this professionally or as a con, in which case the best transacrtion is to NOT support it, or are they truly in need?

But I do see that rule playing out in my work - which is health related. If I focus on what is "wrong" then that takes people further into that. The more perfectly I can focus on their health - as if they are truly healthy in mind and body and emotion and everything, then amazing transformations occur. For myself, that is very much a spiritual rule.

Unless I have the wrong end of the stick, my understamding is that material/secular moral thought demands that we jump into the sess pit with everyione else as an "act of empathy" or that we condemn what we dislike.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
... honouring this human being in front of you as a another valuable part of creation - equally as valuable as yourself, who is deserving of respect.

I find street beggars particularly difficult in this regard, because the "do unto others" requires us to do our best to act in the other persons best interests. Is the beggar doing this professionally or as a con, in which case the best transacrtion is to NOT support it, or are they truly in need?

I usually give - if I were begging I wouldn't want people to assume I might be a con-man. And that would be true whether I were one or not (though obviously for different reasons). So if I were, in Kantian style, to universalise my view it would include accepting people as being what they seem.

But more generally, is it clear that "do unto others" means acting in their best interests? What we see as another's best interests may not be how they see their best interests. When are we entitled to override their view of their best interest.

Unless I have the wrong end of the stick, my understamding is that material/secular moral thought demands that we jump into the sess pit with everyione else as an "act of empathy" or that we condemn what we dislike.

I don't think material/secular moral thought "demands" any one thing nor am I clear what you mean by jumping into the cesspit. Who is this 'everyone else' who is already there? I guess that must mean I'm already in the pit since most people I know seem to work on a fairly similar moral framework to me. I'll stay with my friends.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?
That misses the point twice, I suspect deliberately.

Firstly, a positive conviction is different from a habit. Unless the meat eater is a meat eater because they MUST eat meat for a specific (e.g. medical or religious) reason at every meal - in which case they should be aware that not everyone has meat in their larder. Exactly the same as people with e.g. glutren intolerance often carry their own food around because they can't guarantee that they will be able to find edible food wherever they go.

Secondly, "do unto others" is not about trivial habits or even relatively minor convictions, but about honouring this human being in front of you as a another valuable part of creation - equally as valuable as yourself, who is deserving of respect.

This is all very well, but the golden rule doesn't say anything about any of it. You're performing eisegesis on it: you're putting in your own moral convinctions. You are interpreting it as making a distinction between positive convictions and habits; about it not applying to trivial habits or relatively minor convinctions. You are taking it as an expression of honouring this human being in front of you as a valuable part of creation. But you're not getting any of that from the Golden Rule. You're using the golden rule as a summary of things you already believe on some other principles.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Have we reached the point where societies could operate without formal religion?

People "could" operate without all sorts of things, for example, without a government. It just turns out that they operate rather badly without one, and will rapidly form one if it doesn't exist. At least so if there are many of them; the pressure to establish social structures is always higher when there are more people. Our world has lots of people, so in most parts of the world society will be structured. Spirituality tends to seek community, and spiritual community interacts at least in part by rites. If "old" instituted religions with their grown rites disappear, then people will make new instituted religions and grow new rites. "Formal" religion is nothing alien to spirituality, it is its outcome in a social setting of many people. Many people around here confuse the problems they have with a particular instituted religion with some kind of call for "free" spirituality. But all instituted religion is, from a social point of view, is the distinct organisation and manners of a like-minded group of people. To wish to be free of that is in the end to wish to be free of like-minded people. And that is not natural to spirituality (or indeed most people most of the time, no matter what you are talking about).

People abhor a social vacuum. If the "formal" religions we knew fall, others will rise. Perhaps you will be happier with them. Perhaps not.

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How does one get religionists to allow for the idea that the "other" people have the right to simply exist even if they don't belong to the club?

When will you stop beating your wife? This is a loaded question which simply ignores reality. Most "religionists" do not operate under the assumption that they can simply kill everybody who is not of their religion. Certainly that is not the case today, but I would consider it as a questionable statement even about history. Toleration of other religions has been around ever since societies became so large and complex as to support more than one religion. Not perhaps toleration up to standards of the Western 21stC, but certainly a toleration that allows for some existence at least. The Jews, for example, were exiled in Babylon and not simply entirely killed off. And if they had submitted to Babylonian rule from the start, rather than fighting, then likely they would have been left to their devices, mostly. And if we go further back in history to where there were merely tribes roaming the lands, the arguably religion was not sufficiently separated from all the other "tribal marks" to say that one tribe killed off another over religion.

Anyway, I suspect that you don't want to have just guarantees of "mere existence" from "religionists", because those you have now. What you want is a lot more. The real interest lies rather in the question just how much tolerance one can ask for before one starts to disrupt the function of religion. The concept of religion as a private hobby is a now common, but actually quite extreme, view on this.

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: monkey morality: The rhesus monkeys in the study exhibited a definite ability to do "good" things for other members of the tribe, things which were not merely for the purposes of the doer - helping an elderly, crippled female to get to the water supply, for instance. This exhibits that there is some form of moral code involving the members of that tribe.

This just shows confusion about what morals are. One is not simply moral just because one contributes to the good of another or a group. Otherwise wasps and termites are moral. Indeed, otherwise the grime forming in your shower is moral, for its surface members change properties in a way that protects the bacteria deeper inside from you cleaning them away. A moral decision is strictly speaking only possible if one understands the situation and makes a voluntary decision about it. It might indeed make sense to say that some higher animals have proto-morals, namely in the sense that if they only had full understanding and real voluntary control, their behaviour would be immediately recognisable as moral to us. Unsurprisingly, this occurs to us most strikingly with monkeys and apes. Because our own morals are closer to their proto-morals, by biological similarity. It is somewhat less clear that most people would be happy to recognise the behaviour of intelligent wasps as moral. That just shows that most people have no principle concerning morals and are judging simply by similarity.

Anyway, Prof de Waal is rather well known for his general opinion that humanity is little more than yet another family of great apes. Whatever one may think of this view, one should consider his statements about monkeys and apes with a grain of salt. He very definitely has a wider agenda.

[ 29. July 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?
...
That's written as though you do not think the second follows automatically from the first. Can you explain why?

Because the vegetarian is abstaining from meat out of a positive moral conviction about animal rights. That is an important consideration deserving of respect. Or alternatively they might be abstaining for health reasons: again an important reason deserving of respect. But in most cases a meat-eater is only eating meat because they prefer the taste to vegetables, and those kinds of preference in taste don't have the same moral weight.
But the Golden Rule says nothing about making that kind of distinction.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I deliberately did not define "morality", leaving it in the general sense of An understood code of behaviour which keeps most members (ideally all) in a safe and relatively comfortable life"

Re: monkey morality: The rhesus monkeys in the study exhibited a definite ability to do "good" things for other members of the tribe, things which were not merely for the purposes of the doer - helping an elderly, crippled female to get to the water supply, for instance. This exhibits that there is some form of moral code involving the members of that tribe.

I don't think it does exhibit the existence of a code. I'll use Hume's description of morality to explain.
Hume thinks we have a variety of passions, of which self-regard is one, and compassion or benevolence is another. We then take two further steps. The step to stage two is that we feel and express approval towards other people's compassion. The step to stage three is that we then institute rules of justice to resolve disputes as a formal code.

I would argue that we don't really have morality as we understand it until we have explicit expressions of step two. And that we don't have a moral code until we're at stage three.

I think it's problematic to say you have something called morality until you have a language. By a language I mean a code of symbols that can be mentioned as well as just used. (Language is mentioned when it is quoted or talked about or otherwise not used to refer directly. It is used when it refers directly.) I think we have morality when we can consider hypothetical actions and decide to do them or refrain on the grounds that they're moral or not moral. Monkeys may turn out to be able to do that, but there's no evidence of that yet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, de Waal has in fact stated in one of his books, that he does not consider primates to be moral beings, for reasons outlined above by several posters.

However, he has consistently criticized 'veneer' theory, which traditionally used to say that humans had a thin veneer of morality over a kind of brutality, derived from our animal nature. Of course, de Waal has been arguing for some time, that animals show aggression and brutality, but also, cooperation and empathy.

However, arguably there is a kind of gap between animal empathy and human empathy - of course, it's tempting to suggest an evolutionary link, but I'm not sure how/if that can be demonstrated. I expect the mathematicians are already hard at work.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

I think perhaps there is an inherent problem with searching for a morality that can be verified as more than simply a cultural construct - it tries to dig up something that does not exist.

Regardless of whether you not you are inspired by Kant or the Bible (or both, or neither, or something else), morality ultimately becomes a matter of faith.

Marx, early on in his career, wrote the following :

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice."

To me, this makes a lot of sense. Morality exists purely in the mind. The "truth" of it is only proven through application, not theory.

(PS! Claiming that morality only exists in the mind, is not intended to belittle its importance. To "only" be a cultural construct, does not in any way reduce the potential beauty and greatness of the application of it).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Candide

I suppose that's one of the interesting aspects of animal studies, that primatologists and others are studying apparently moral behaviour. However, the various primates involved are generally not termed to be moral beings, since it's assumed that they don't cogitate about morality, and don't possess the mental constructs, as you indicate! Well, maybe they do, but they are unconscious. I suppose humans are more conscious!

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

Consider a meat-eater and a vegetarian. I assume you agree that the meat-eater ought to serve the vegetarian not meat? Is the vegetarian therefore obliged to serve the meat-eater meat?
That misses the point twice, I suspect deliberately.

Firstly, a positive conviction is different from a habit. Unless the meat eater is a meat eater because they MUST eat meat for a specific (e.g. medical or religious) reason at every meal - in which case they should be aware that not everyone has meat in their larder. Exactly the same as people with e.g. glutren intolerance often carry their own food around because they can't guarantee that they will be able to find edible food wherever they go.

Secondly, "do unto others" is not about trivial habits or even relatively minor convictions, but about honouring this human being in front of you as a another valuable part of creation - equally as valuable as yourself, who is deserving of respect.
This is all very well, but the golden rule doesn't say anything about any of it. You're performing eisegesis on it: you're putting in your own moral convinctions. You are interpreting it as making a distinction between positive convictions and habits; about it not applying to trivial habits or relatively minor convinctions. You are taking it as an expression of honouring this human being in front of you as a valuable part of creation. But you're not getting any of that from the Golden Rule. You're using the golden rule as a summary of things you already believe on some other principles.

Hi Dafyd

I don't have a problem with that [Smile]

If everything is purely devised from mental/intellectual first principles (which incidentally, I don't believe is possible - I can give you some neurological/physiological reasons for that if you wish), then there is no morality - because it is all ideas and culture, and everything is relative. There has to be some nod to both experience and an internal sense of rightness. And I would say more than a nod - if something is debated out and it still doesn't feel right, then it is incorrect. Morality is not an idea. Laws and moral/ethical codes are only necessary because humankind is more or less numb to their own internal (spiritual) selves. This is compounded by spiritual traditions that have considered the body to be unclean and not fundamentally connected to our spiritual selves. The body is our sensory apparatus. If we despise the senses, we only have our minds left, and Descartes might as well be the new prophet.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

My mother's side of the family moved through various stages on adhering to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Anglican; my father was an agnostic (probably related to the general loss of faith during/after WW1: born 1907, he "came of age" in that era) while his father was a village schoolteacher and church warden in a more settled era.

This probably contributes to my desire to "stick to basics", rather than trying to find any excuse to say that one specific form is "The Truth"

The general moral position of The Church should, ISTM, relate to that which is best for all, rather than fault-finding and nit-picking (although I admit that actual nits do have to be picked for the general good of all in a school, for example)

So what am I to do when a group of avowed Satanists take public positions here and here that make more "religious" sense than what is espoused by vocal Christians?

In all too many cases, the inability of many church people to deal with the place to which the Kingdom is supposed to come is causing the rest of the population to wonder why one would join such an immoral organisation in the first place. But those people still want an established moral code. Where is it to come from?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sorry to make a host's life more difficult, but just appeared in my reading. this

Makes the point that many Christians aren't a reliable source of rational discussion about morality, let alone reliable moral actors. Clearly a case where the Golden Rule has never been heard of, despite the direct command of Jesus.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Seems to me that's a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of the Golden Rule to define morality.

The conservative Christian reasoning would go thus: "I'm not gay and being gay is bad so no-one else should be gay either". They are only doing what they themselves would expect be done to them.

Is it moral? Well....according to their Golden Rule, yes.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Horseman Bree;

quote:
The general moral position of The Church should, ISTM, relate to that which is best for all, rather than fault-finding and nit-picking (although I admit that actual nits do have to be picked for the general good of all in a school, for example)

The moral position of the Church is to do what God has revealed as right. This would be 'best for all' IF all voluntarily accepted it, including the belief in God which is the foundation of the Church's practice.

Where that belief is not accepted there will be argument whether Christian morality is 'best for all'. According to the NT, the Church's job is NOT to impose that morality by law on non-believers/other-believers, but to demonstrate in Church life that Christian morality is good, and seek to persuade people to voluntarily believe in God and then join their fellow-Christians in the practice of Christian morality.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Amen.

The problem tho is twofold:

1) Christians are always great at leading blessed lives.

2) Some Chrisians really believe that all non-Christians will go to Hell so push their hardest to convert people in hope that they will be "saved" from eternal damnation.

What, in your opinion, would the NT say to that? I think you've been arguing the NT is the true form of Christianity.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Evensong;

quote:
The problem tho is twofold:

1) Christians are always great at leading blessed lives.

2) Some Chrisians really believe that all non-Christians will go to Hell so push their hardest to convert people in hope that they will be "saved" from eternal damnation.

On (1), if only.... But yes, I think that's broadly true though the issue is a bit confused by 'Christian countries' where a lot of the 'Christians' may be only nominally so and following the rules of Christian morality in a somewhat legalistic way which isn't ideal.

On (2), the key is in that word 'voluntary' - forced belief is not necessarily real belief, so forcing people to conform in belief again muddies how we interpret the situation - a forced belief may be positively counter-productive in terms of what ultimately matters.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0