Atheist morality?

[citizenkyle]

Blake Reas asked me what I, as an atheist, base my moral system on. The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on that very issue.

"I would argue that even *with a God*, objective morality is a pipe dream. Let's start there.

Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

We can examine moral choices in terms of their goal orientation. For instance, a person may have the goal of gaining wealth. Thus, in order to gain wealth, stealing is good. But, most likely, that is not our person's lone goal and not all goals carry equal weight. Suppose our person is a Christian who wants to gain wealth. While stealing would be good for the end of gaining wealth, there is a higher order goal (such as obeying the commandment "Thou shalt not steal") which vetoes the garnering of riches. Indeed, there may be a number of goals which would override stealing, such as the goal of avoiding jail. There will inevitably be a hierarchy of goals with some sort of overarching ultimate goal at the top of the heap. For the Christian, the ultimate goal might be something like "loving, serving, and obeying God." Thus, in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much booty was available for the looting, the Christian would have to consider stealing inconsistent with his ultimate goal, and therefore "bad".

This is all pretty straight forward, but let's turn the tables and suppose that our person is a Satan worshipper whose ultimate goal is to "disobey God and gather riches for the Dark Lord". How would one go about arguing with this person that stealing is bad? Clearly, any contention about the will of God would not sway such a person. In fact, it would only act as an impetus to "disobey". The only way to convince the Satanist not to steal would be to couch one's reasoning within the framework of their ultimate goal. For instance, one might argue that the risk of incarceration is too great, and if jail time had to be served then stealing would result in a less cost effective gathering of riches than a more legitimate alternative. But the bottom line is that there are no objective standards that apply to all. "Good" and "bad" must be calibrated according to each individual's goals.

Since people will inevitably have varying goals and goal conflicts, this seems like rather hopeless situation. Given such a situation, one might wonder how I can possibly expect us to avoid moral chaos. If human goals were, in actuality, wildly divergent across the board, there could be no reconciling morality. But there is common ground and many humans share goals. So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness. No human being I am aware of wants to be unhappy. Even masochists derive a kind of pleasure from their pain. I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action. That is, people always act with the intention of increasing their happiness (or decreasing their unhappiness which amounts to the same thing).

Of course, people are not always adept at judging what will make them happy. Sometimes they make decisions that result in disastrous (if unintended) consequences. And there is also the issue of short term happiness vs. long term happiness. Sometimes people will act to satisfy some short term desire (say "lust for a coworker") at the expense of a long term desire (say "staying married"). Short term desires must be risk managed so as to not thwart long term happiness.

On the surface, this might sound like a call to do whatever one wants and the hell with everyone else. But, if we examine things more closely, we will see that that would be a poor strategy for long term happiness. Suppose one decided to murder, steal, lie, cheat, betray, etc whenever it struck one's fancy. Human nature is to reciprocate and a person who employed such a strategy would soon find their self under constant threat of being murdered, stolen from, lied to, cheated, betrayed, etc. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people would like to avoid these fates. Because reciprocity is part and parcel of human nature, there is only one way to insulate oneself from such threats. That is to agree with all the other members of a given society to a list of proscribed actions. This list will inevitably be divided into two parts: 1) Those actions which will be enforced informally by societal peer pressure and social condemnation (say lying) and 2) Those actions which will be formally punished by organized authority (say murder). Tacit agreements of this sort are how moral systems develop out of nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

Which brings up to the $20,000 question. Which actions go on the list? Up until now, everything has applied equally to theists and secularists alike. But here is where theists have it easy. If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest. For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list. And, we must constantly reexamine the list in light of new information and circumstances, making changes as necessary. This is a truly democratic process. Because every action an individual takes, however minor, helps to mold society for good or ill, the question that is often asked during this process is: "What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?". But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune. Interestingly, these moral foundations are well captured by a couple of old religious adages - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "There, but for the grace of God, go I". "

[dizzle]

These ideas of "happiness" as morality and "society says morality" have been soundly defeated by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. I will have to dig out my notes on the subject and resharpen my philopshocial skills deadened by too much absorption in eschatology.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
"I would argue that even *with a God*, objective morality is a pipe dream. Let's start there.

Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

Yes, of course there is a component of goal-orientation in moral questions. But I don't think that this makes the theistic conception of objective moral values problematic. The theist can respond that God's nature, which is the ultimate basis of all existence, is the ultimate standard of morality and the value of different alternative goals that we can pursue, is determined by how well that goal conforms to that standard. What could possibly provide a better ground for morality than the one entity which provides the ground for all existence and has perfect knowledge? If people choose goals which do not conform to this standard, then it will be the case, that even if their actions are "good" according to the goals that they have chosen, the goals themselves are wrong ones.




citizenkyle:
So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness.

This is in certain ways probably one of the most consistent atheistic views on morality, but I think that there still are some serious problems in it. Given that it is ultimately one's own happiness that matters, this will lead to a very strange view on the question of why something is wrong. Think about it. Do you really think that, for example, it is wrong for a man to rape a woman because it would risk his own happiness (because of the risk of punishment by society) and not because it will do a great deal of damage to the happines of his victim?! I don't believe that you think so. You are too sensible person for that.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
These ideas of "happiness" as morality and "society says morality" have been soundly defeated by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. I will have to dig out my notes on the subject and resharpen my philopshocial skills deadened by too much absorption in eschatology.
I think Kyle is using enlightened self-interest.

Although I'm an agnostic, I suspect there is no way to erect a secular ethical system that dictates that we abstain from acts that harm others but benefit ourselves under circumstances where it's clear we won't be exposed. The closest we can come is probably the idea that developing the habit of always adhering to a no-harm rule will free us from constantly making calculations and risking being wrong.

My answer: that's just the way it is, and we agnostics have to be adults about it. You can't get blood from a stone. But that doesn't mean there is a God.

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee Warren:
These ideas of "happiness" as morality and "society says morality" have been soundly defeated by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. I will have to dig out my notes on the subject and resharpen my philopshocial skills deadened by too much absorption in eschatology.

I think what I said is a little more subtle than "happiness" = morality and "society says morality". In any case, I was once supposed to discuss this issue with Beckwith but that fell apart. If you find your notes, let me know. :)

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:
But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune.

What's wrong with a little circumstantial bias, given the right circumstances (such as the bias leading to the type of society that I--or my children--wish to live in)?

Given such a framework the atheist can only be relatively correct about his morality--and anybody can say that within the framework presented.

The theist (*or* an atheist) could actually be correct concerning his morality (within a theistic framework).
The theist and the atheist are in the same boat in that both develop their impressions of morality "subjectively" no matter what criteria (evidence or unsupported opinion) are used.

[citizenkyle]

Pate:


Yes, of course there is a component of goal-orientation in moral questions. But I don't think that this makes the theistic conception of objective moral values problematic. The theist can respond that God's nature, which is the ultimate basis of all existence, is the ultimate standard of morality and the value of different alternative goals that we can pursue, is determined by how well that goal conforms to that standard. What could possibly provide a better ground for morality than the one entity which provides the ground for all existence and has perfect knowledge?

No entity could provide a better ground. If you believe such an entity exists you should certainly base your morality on its dictates.

Pate:
This is in certain ways probably one of the most consistent atheistic views on morality, but I think that there still are some serious problems in it. Given that it is ultimately one's own happiness that matters, this will lead to a very strange view on the question of why something is wrong. Think about it. Do you really think that, for example, it is wrong for a man to rape a woman because it would risk his own happiness (because of the risk of punishment by society) and not because it will do a great deal of damage to the happines of his victim?! I don't believe that you think so. You are too sensible person for that.

Asking whether it is "wrong" is not the correct question under my paradigm. Rather, the question to ask is: "Does raping a woman create the type of society I want to live in - i.e. one where women are raped? And my answer, of course, would be no.

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:

Asking whether it is "wrong" is not the correct question under my paradigm. Rather, the question to ask is: "Does raping a woman create the type of society I want to live in - i.e. one where women are raped? And my answer, of course, would be no.

Would your answer be wrong if it were "yes"?

[edit to add]

Your answer is given sufficiently within the context, actually--so I apologize if my posts manifest a painful property of obviousness.

Kyle, your original post is somewhat inconsistent in its use of language, such as where you talk about various strategies affecting society "for good or ill" (I hope I quoted you accurately). Also, what could be more fickle than the majority opinion as to what is the right thing to do?
:hrm:
I don't find it appropriate to elevate one fickalilty over another.
:)

Are you sure that you're free of implicit absolutes?

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:

What's wrong with a little circumstantial bias, given the right circumstances (such as the bias leading to the type of society that I--or my children--wish to live in)?

If you want to live in a society where circumstantial bias is the order of the day (and the fickle winds of fortune almost inevitably assure it will not always be in your favor) then I cannot argue with you on this point.

Captain Ochre:
Given such a framework the atheist can only be relatively correct about his morality--and anybody can say that within the framework presented.

This is true. Indeed, the first part of my initial post was dedicated to the thesis that morality is inherently relative.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
No entity could provide a better ground. If you believe such an entity exists you should certainly base your morality on its dictates.

OK. So we agree on this much. :)


citizenkyle:
Asking whether it is "wrong" is not the correct question under my paradigm. Rather, the question to ask is: "Does raping a woman create the type of society I want to live in - i.e. one where women are raped? And my answer, of course, would be no.

And you would not want to live in that kind of society because you would not be as happy in it, as you would be in a society where women are not raped?

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:


Would your answer be wrong if it were "yes"?

Under my paradigm, that is a meaningless question.

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
And you would not want to live in that kind of society because you would not be as happy in it, as you would be in a society where women are not raped?

That is a fair assessment.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
Asking whether it is "wrong" is not the correct question under my paradigm. Rather, the question to ask is: "Does raping a woman create the type of society I want to live in - i.e. one where women are raped? And my answer, of course, would be no.

By the way, what about moral decisions that will have effect in society only after you have already died?

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
By the way, how about moral decisions that will have effect in society only after you have already died?

Presumably one would leave behind loved ones (children, grandchildren, friends, students, etc) whom would still have to live in that society.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:


Presumably one would leave behind loved ones (children, grandchildren, friends, students, etc) whom would still have to live in that society.

Hmm... how much your grand-grand-grand-grand-children really differ from complete strangers? And you even have no certainty that your children will produce offspring. But anyway, this may not be that important question. So, I'll ask a couple of new ones:

What about the acts of self-sacrifice, which are such that they will cost you your own life? Can such acts be justified?

You say that in your moral system, you decide the worth of an action based on how it effects your happiness (and how it helps to produce the kind of society that you want to live in.) But I suppose that you also sometimes find yourself in situations where you realize that what causes you to be happy now (and also in the future if you don't consciously try to change your preferences) is something that you nevertheless feel you should not be happy about. How would you describe these situations from your point of view and what would be the most reasonble course of action in these situations?

[Pate]

Pate:
And you would not want to live in that kind of society because you would not be as happy in it, as you would be in a society where women are not raped?

citizenkyle:
That is a fair assessment.

I can't help but find your view of the basis of moral values very strongly disagreeable. But I guess that's just my problem. ;)

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
What about the acts of self-sacrifice, which are such that they will cost you your own life? Can such acts be justified?

If the shame and self-loathing caused by not acting would be so great that one would not want to live while bearing their burdens, then such acts would make sense. For instance, I couldn't live with myself if I let my son perish when acting could've saved him - even if such action cost me my life.

Pate:
You say that in your moral system, you decide the worth of an action based on how it effects your happiness (and how it helps to produce the kind of society that you want to live in.) But I suppose that you also sometimes find yourself in situations where you realize that what causes you to be happy now (and also in the future if you don't consciously try to change your preferences) is something that you nevertheless feel you should not be happy about.

Not really. Of course, I sometimes find myself in situations where happiness "now" is not worth the cost in the long term. For instance, I may have the opportunity to cheat on my wife and the "now"-happiness created by satisfying lust can be tempting. However, in the long term the decision to cave in to such temptation would likely be disastrous. The trust in my marriage would be undermined (even if she didn't find out) and this could set off a whole chain reaction of dire consequences that would affect my life dramatically for years to come.

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
I can't help but find your view of the basis of moral values very strongly disagreeable. But I guess that's just my problem. ;)

Of course, being disagreeable doesn't mean it's false. :) And besides, I don't know why you would find it so unpalatable. After all, assuming the Christian God exists, my paradigm supports you continuing to adhere to Christian morality.

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Of course, being disagreeable doesn't mean it's false. :) And besides, I don't know why you would find it so unpalatable. After all, assuming the Christian God exists, my paradigm supports you continuing to adhere to Christian morality.

:)
Hardly a surprise, since it could as easily support abandoning Christian morality.

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:
:)
Hardly a surprise, since it could as easily support abandoning Christian morality.

Not quite. As Pate pointed out:

"The theist can respond that God's nature, which is the ultimate basis of all existence, is the ultimate standard of morality and the value of different alternative goals that we can pursue, is determined by how well that goal conforms to that standard. What could possibly provide a better ground for morality than the one entity which provides the ground for all existence and has perfect knowledge?"

To which I agreed that, if God exists, one could have no better ground. In other words, if the Christian God exists, it would be assinine to live in opposition to his will.

[Ryokan]

I was in a very long discussion over at TOL about this, and my question to you is, believers, why do you follow God, then?

[Blake Reas]

citizenkyle:
Blake Reas asked me what I, as an atheist, base my moral system on. The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on that very issue.

"I would argue that even *with a God*, objective morality is a pipe dream. Let's start there.

Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

We can examine moral choices in terms of their goal orientation. For instance, a person may have the goal of gaining wealth. Thus, in order to gain wealth, stealing is good. But, most likely, that is not our person's lone goal and not all goals carry equal weight. Suppose our person is a Christian who wants to gain wealth. While stealing would be good for the end of gaining wealth, there is a higher order goal (such as obeying the commandment "Thou shalt not steal") which vetoes the garnering of riches. Indeed, there may be a number of goals which would override stealing, such as the goal of avoiding jail. There will inevitably be a hierarchy of goals with some sort of overarching ultimate goal at the top of the heap. For the Christian, the ultimate goal might be something like "loving, serving, and obeying God." Thus, in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much booty was available for the looting, the Christian would have to consider stealing inconsistent with his ultimate goal, and therefore "bad".

This is all pretty straight forward, but let's turn the tables and suppose that our person is a Satan worshipper whose ultimate goal is to "disobey God and gather riches for the Dark Lord". How would one go about arguing with this person that stealing is bad? Clearly, any contention about the will of God would not sway such a person. In fact, it would only act as an impetus to "disobey". The only way to convince the Satanist not to steal would be to couch one's reasoning within the framework of their ultimate goal. For instance, one might argue that the risk of incarceration is too great, and if jail time had to be served then stealing would result in a less cost effective gathering of riches than a more legitimate alternative. But the bottom line is that there are no objective standards that apply to all. "Good" and "bad" must be calibrated according to each individual's goals.

Since people will inevitably have varying goals and goal conflicts, this seems like rather hopeless situation. Given such a situation, one might wonder how I can possibly expect us to avoid moral chaos. If human goals were, in actuality, wildly divergent across the board, there could be no reconciling morality. But there is common ground and many humans share goals. So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness. No human being I am aware of wants to be unhappy. Even masochists derive a kind of pleasure from their pain. I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action. That is, people always act with the intention of increasing their happiness (or decreasing their unhappiness which amounts to the same thing).

Of course, people are not always adept at judging what will make them happy. Sometimes they make decisions that result in disastrous (if unintended) consequences. And there is also the issue of short term happiness vs. long term happiness. Sometimes people will act to satisfy some short term desire (say "lust for a coworker") at the expense of a long term desire (say "staying married"). Short term desires must be risk managed so as to not thwart long term happiness.

On the surface, this might sound like a call to do whatever one wants and the hell with everyone else. But, if we examine things more closely, we will see that that would be a poor strategy for long term happiness. Suppose one decided to murder, steal, lie, cheat, betray, etc whenever it struck one's fancy. Human nature is to reciprocate and a person who employed such a strategy would soon find their self under constant threat of being murdered, stolen from, lied to, cheated, betrayed, etc. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people would like to avoid these fates. Because reciprocity is part and parcel of human nature, there is only one way to insulate oneself from such threats. That is to agree with all the other members of a given society to a list of proscribed actions. This list will inevitably be divided into two parts: 1) Those actions which will be enforced informally by societal peer pressure and social condemnation (say lying) and 2) Those actions which will be formally punished by organized authority (say murder). Tacit agreements of this sort are how moral systems develop out of nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

Which brings up to the $20,000 question. Which actions go on the list? Up until now, everything has applied equally to theists and secularists alike. But here is where theists have it easy. If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest. For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list. And, we must constantly reexamine the list in light of new information and circumstances, making changes as necessary. This is a truly democratic process. Because every action an individual takes, however minor, helps to mold society for good or ill, the question that is often asked during this process is: "What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?". But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune. Interestingly, these moral foundations are well captured by a couple of old religious adages - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "There, but for the grace of God, go I". "

Thanks for the lengthy reply Kyle! Very well done, even thought I disagree with some of it;) . I know finally have gotten an answer where you guys come from! I will reply and ask questions as I read through it a few more times so I do not misrepresent you.

In Christ,
Blake:thumb:

[Blake Reas]

citizenkyle:
Blake Reas asked me what I, as an atheist, base my moral system on. The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on that very issue.

"I would argue that even *with a God*, objective morality is a pipe dream. Let's start there.

Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

We can examine moral choices in terms of their goal orientation. For instance, a person may have the goal of gaining wealth. Thus, in order to gain wealth, stealing is good. But, most likely, that is not our person's lone goal and not all goals carry equal weight. Suppose our person is a Christian who wants to gain wealth. While stealing would be good for the end of gaining wealth, there is a higher order goal (such as obeying the commandment "Thou shalt not steal") which vetoes the garnering of riches. Indeed, there may be a number of goals which would override stealing, such as the goal of avoiding jail. There will inevitably be a hierarchy of goals with some sort of overarching ultimate goal at the top of the heap. For the Christian, the ultimate goal might be something like "loving, serving, and obeying God." Thus, in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much booty was available for the looting, the Christian would have to consider stealing inconsistent with his ultimate goal, and therefore "bad".

This is all pretty straight forward, but let's turn the tables and suppose that our person is a Satan worshipper whose ultimate goal is to "disobey God and gather riches for the Dark Lord". How would one go about arguing with this person that stealing is bad? Clearly, any contention about the will of God would not sway such a person. In fact, it would only act as an impetus to "disobey". The only way to convince the Satanist not to steal would be to couch one's reasoning within the framework of their ultimate goal. For instance, one might argue that the risk of incarceration is too great, and if jail time had to be served then stealing would result in a less cost effective gathering of riches than a more legitimate alternative. But the bottom line is that there are no objective standards that apply to all. "Good" and "bad" must be calibrated according to each individual's goals.

Since people will inevitably have varying goals and goal conflicts, this seems like rather hopeless situation. Given such a situation, one might wonder how I can possibly expect us to avoid moral chaos. If human goals were, in actuality, wildly divergent across the board, there could be no reconciling morality. But there is common ground and many humans share goals. So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness. No human being I am aware of wants to be unhappy. Even masochists derive a kind of pleasure from their pain. I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action. That is, people always act with the intention of increasing their happiness (or decreasing their unhappiness which amounts to the same thing).

Of course, people are not always adept at judging what will make them happy. Sometimes they make decisions that result in disastrous (if unintended) consequences. And there is also the issue of short term happiness vs. long term happiness. Sometimes people will act to satisfy some short term desire (say "lust for a coworker") at the expense of a long term desire (say "staying married"). Short term desires must be risk managed so as to not thwart long term happiness.

On the surface, this might sound like a call to do whatever one wants and the hell with everyone else. But, if we examine things more closely, we will see that that would be a poor strategy for long term happiness. Suppose one decided to murder, steal, lie, cheat, betray, etc whenever it struck one's fancy. Human nature is to reciprocate and a person who employed such a strategy would soon find their self under constant threat of being murdered, stolen from, lied to, cheated, betrayed, etc. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people would like to avoid these fates. Because reciprocity is part and parcel of human nature, there is only one way to insulate oneself from such threats. That is to agree with all the other members of a given society to a list of proscribed actions. This list will inevitably be divided into two parts: 1) Those actions which will be enforced informally by societal peer pressure and social condemnation (say lying) and 2) Those actions which will be formally punished by organized authority (say murder). Tacit agreements of this sort are how moral systems develop out of nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

Which brings up to the $20,000 question. Which actions go on the list? Up until now, everything has applied equally to theists and secularists alike. But here is where theists have it easy. If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest. For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list. And, we must constantly reexamine the list in light of new information and circumstances, making changes as necessary. This is a truly democratic process. Because every action an individual takes, however minor, helps to mold society for good or ill, the question that is often asked during this process is: "What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?". But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune. Interestingly, these moral foundations are well captured by a couple of old religious adages - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "There, but for the grace of God, go I". "

Thanks for the lengthy reply Kyle! Very well done, even though I disagree with some of it;) . I now finally have gotten an answer where you guys come from! I will reply and ask questions as I read through it a few more times so I do not misrepresent you.

In Christ,
Blake:thumb:

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Not quite. As Pate pointed out:

"The theist can respond that God's nature, which is the ultimate basis of all existence, is the ultimate standard of morality and the value of different alternative goals that we can pursue, is determined by how well that goal conforms to that standard. What could possibly provide a better ground for morality than the one entity which provides the ground for all existence and has perfect knowledge?"

To which I agreed that, if God exists, one could have no better ground. In other words, if the Christian God exists, it would be assinine to live in opposition to his will.

I must be missing something.
If Pate's view of an absolute moral lawgiver is correct (even though outcome-based), then your position of relative morals is false. Pate's view of moral particulars is fine, however, within your view of relativistic morals, as would be his decision to abandon the (incorrectly) absolute morals (again, within the Kyle view of morality).

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:


I must be missing something.
If Pate's view of an absolute moral lawgiver is correct (even though outcome-based), then your position of relative morals is false. Pate's view of moral particulars is fine, however, within your view of relativistic morals, as would be his decision to abandon the (incorrectly) absolute morals (again, within the Kyle view of morality).

Yes, I see where your confusion lies. Pate is incorrect in asserting that there are absolute moral laws, however, he is prudent in following the moral particulars of Christiaity given that he believes in the Christian God. Abandoning those moral particulars would be most imprudent as God is all-wise and loving. Thus, Pate can count on God knowing what is in his own best interest far better than he himself could ever hope to surmise.

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Yes, I see where your confusion lies. Pate is incorrect in asserting that there are absolute moral laws, however, he is prudent in following the moral particulars of Christiaity given that he believes in the Christian God. Abandoning those moral particulars would be most imprudent as God is all-wise and loving. Thus, Pate can count on God knowing what is in his own best interest far better than he himself could ever hope to surmise.


And this identifies the souce of my confusion . . . how?

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:
And this identifies the souce of my confusion . . . how?

Hmmm. Maybe I didn't understand your confusion after all. Can you please restate your issue?

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Hmmm. Maybe I didn't understand your confusion after all. Can you please restate your issue?

If you don't think I'm confused, then I'm not sure that there *is* an issue.
:)

If you *do* think I'm confused, then I'm sure you think so with good reason--I just didn't detect it in what you wrote above.

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:


If you don't think I'm confused, then I'm not sure that there *is* an issue.
:)

If you *do* think I'm confused, then I'm sure you think so with good reason--I just didn't detect it in what you wrote above.

I only thought you were confused because you said "Maybe I'm missing something here."

I then tried to clarify that, under my view, Pate would be incorrect to hold to the idea of objective moral values, but correct to continue obedience to the moral values he previously held to be objective. Make sense?

[J. J. Ramsey]

citizenkyle:
Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?".


Are you so sure? To choose to not do something because it would harm me would generally be considered a pragmatic decision, not a moral one.


There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good.".


There is nothing tautological per se with saying that something is "good in and of itself." Someone who holds to the understanding that x can be good in and of itself may respond to the question "Why is x good?" with the answer mu (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/mu.html)."

I strongly suggest that you try to find the article "Goodness as a Unique Indefinable Quality" by G.E. Moore. You might find better luck finding it in a college or public library rather than online. I found it in a book called Ethical Theories: A Book of Readings. Anyway, the gist of the article is that while "good" is something that we can intuitively understand, it is not something that we neatly define, and when we try, we end up with definitions that don't really match with what we know "good" really means. In short, the meaning of good is always just on the tip of our tongue. Moore likens the term "good" to the term "yellow," a word that most definitely has meaning, but not a verbal definition that really quite describes it. (Moore answers the objection that "yellow" can be defined in terms of light waves with a certain range of wavelengths. He points out that unless we already understood what yellow meant, we could never have classified that range of wavelengths in the first place.)

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


I only thought you were confused because you said "Maybe I'm missing something here."

I then tried to clarify that, under my view, Pate would be incorrect to hold to the idea of objective moral values, but correct to continue obedience to the moral values he previously held to be objective. Make sense?

The ball got rolling when your replied to me beginning with "Not quite . . ."
At that point I failed to detect where I had got it wrong (can't resist the Doolittleism, sorry), and that remains the case today.

[TheFiveSolas]

Kyle wrote:
Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.


Kyle, I'm trying to get a grasp on your position and perhaps the best way I can do that is to ask a simple question.

Are some goals good and others bad (which you seem to imply) and if so what makes them so? In other words, how can you rationally speak of a certain action being "good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent" without the goal itself being either inherently good or bad?

[citizenkyle]

J. J. Ramsey:
Are you so sure? To choose to not do something because it would harm me would generally be considered a pragmatic decision, not a moral one.

I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive.

J. J. Ramsey:
There is nothing tautological per se with saying that something is "good in and of itself."

I fail to see any meaning in such a statement.

J. J. Ramsey:
Someone who holds to the understanding that x can be good in and of itself may respond to the question "Why is x good?" with the answer mu (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/mu.html)."

I suppose they could. But then they would have to demonstrate that my assumption was incorrect.

J. J. Ramsey:
I strongly suggest that you try to find the article "Goodness as a Unique Indefinable Quality" by G.E. Moore. You might find better luck finding it in a college or public library rather than online. I found it in a book called Ethical Theories: A Book of Readings. Anyway, the gist of the article is that while "good" is something that we can intuitively understand, it is not something that we neatly define, and when we try, we end up with definitions that don't really match with what we know "good" really means. In short, the meaning of good is always just on the tip of our tongue. Moore likens the term "good" to the term "yellow," a word that most definitely has meaning, but not a verbal definition that really quite describes it. (Moore answers the objection that "yellow" can be defined in terms of light waves with a certain range of wavelengths. He points out that unless we already understood what yellow meant, we could never have classified that range of wavelengths in the first place.)

Interesting idea. I will try to get my hands on the article. I can see the point raised, however, the question must be asked: If we can't define it, how to do we know what "good" really means? I suppose a Christian would answer something like "God has written the knowledge of good in our hearts". I actually do think there is something to that - except that I would suggest that this "internal knowledge" is written in our minds by genetics and soietal experience. The genetics part explains the similarities in human moral systems - the experience part explains the differences.

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:
The ball got rolling when your replied to me beginning with "Not quite . . ."
At that point I failed to detect where I had got it wrong (can't resist the Doolittleism, sorry), and that remains the case today.

I said (To Pate):
After all, assuming the Christian God exists, my paradigm supports you continuing to adhere to Christian morality.

Then you said:
Hardly a surprise, since it could as easily support abandoning Christian morality.

But that is not quite correct, since it would not support abandoning Christian morality (in the particulars anyway) *if* you believe in the Christian God (as Pate does). If that's what you meant, then I guess there was no confusion.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
If the shame and self-loathing caused by not acting would be so great that one would not want to live while bearing their burdens, then such acts would make sense. For instance, I couldn't live with myself if I let my son perish when acting could've saved him - even if such action cost me my life.

OK. But if we don't take into account situations where your family or close friends are concerned, and if you can avoid any serious contempt from the society that you live in, isn't it the case that self-sacrifise is a very stupid thing to do according to your view of morals?


citizenkyle:
Of course, being disagreeable doesn't mean it's false. :) And besides, I don't know why you would find it so unpalatable. After all, assuming the Christian God exists, my paradigm supports you continuing to adhere to Christian morality.

My problem with this view is that according to it, the effect that a course of action has to one's own happiness is the only measure by which the moral quality of an action is determined. To me (and I dare say, to majority of people) it's just intuitively obvious that there's much more to the questions of morality than just one's own happiness. I just can't bring myself to believe that the reason why it's "wrong" for me to commit a murder is that it can have a very negative effect to my pursuit of happiness.



These earlier examples have been concerned with rape, murder etc, but let's take a different example. Let's suppose that you had a foolproof way to steal 10 million dollars from immensely rich person without a risk of ever getting caught. Would you do it?



I also suppose that you don't just find yourself with all the moral preferences that you have and then go on to hold to them without ever questioning them. Given that your view of the nature of morality boils down to trying to achieve as much happiness as possible, isn't it also true that you should consciously try to change your moral preferences, as much as you can, to such a direction that they are fulfilled as often and as easily as possible, and violated as seldom and as mildly as possible? After all, this will guarantee that you will experience very much happiness and you don't need to feel moral outrage or sadness very often.

I think that this principle has very bizarre effect to moral deliberations. It will not be the case, that you should be more concerned of such things as human rights in China, starvation in Africa etc. These are the kind of things that you will not be able to stop, no matter how much you want to, and any significant action to even slightly reduce them will require high contribution with relatively low results. Because of this, you should, according to your view, try to revise your attitudes and preferences to the direction of being less concerned about these things, as this will make it easier to feel happiness instead of frustation, moral outrage and sadness.

At least it's not easy to avoid making a conclusion like that when examining moral issues from your paradigm.

[citizenkyle]

TheFiveSolas:
Kyle, I'm trying to get a grasp on your position and perhaps the best way I can do that is to ask a simple question.

Are some goals good and others bad (which you seem to imply) and if so what makes them so?

I didn't mean to imply that some goals were "objectively" good and others "objectively" bad. This would be rather hopeless if everyone had wildly divergent goals. Fortunately, most humans share a lot of the same basic goals, so we are able to have a shared morality.

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
OK. But if we don't take into account situations where your family or close friends are concerned, and if you can avoid any serious contempt from the society that you live in, isn't it the case that self-sacrifise is a very stupid thing to do according to your view of morals?

If you don't care at all about the person you are sacrificing yourself for then, yes, it would be a stupid thing to do. However, I would note that it's not impossible to care about a complete stranger.

Pate:
My problem with this view is that according to it, the effect that a course of action has to one's own happiness is the only measure by which the moral quality of an action is determined. To me (and I dare say, to majority of people) it's just intuitively obvious that there's much more to the questions of morality than just one's own happiness. I just can't bring myself to believe that the reason why it's "wrong" for me to commit a murder is that it can have a very negative effect to my pursuit of happiness.

The effect is broader than that in that improves the lives of people in the society at large, but the ultimate motivation is rooted in self interest. This seeming contradiction is possible because all the members of society are engaged in a giant non-zero sum game. One person's gain is not necessarily another person's loss. Non-zero sum logic is what makes the free market possible and it is no different with morality. One might speak of an invisble *moral* hand.

Pate:
These earlier examples have been concerned with rape, murder etc, but let's take a different example. Let's suppose that you had a foolproof way to steal 10 million dollars from immensely rich person without a risk of ever getting caught. Would you do it?

Is the question "would I do it?" or "is any answer but yes consistent with my moral view?" :). Because I am certain that many Christians put in such a position would take the money and run despite it being in opposition to their moral view. As for myself, it would be difficult to overcome such temptation. I can't say for sure what I would do in such a situation. However, under my moral paradigm, one could argue that steaing the money helps create a society in which stealing is acceptable. Since this is not the society most people want, the action would be immoral.

Pate:
I also suppose that you don't just find yourself with all the moral preferences that you have and then go on to hold to them without ever questioning them. Given that your view of the nature of morality boils down to trying to achieve as much happiness as possible, isn't it also true that you should consciously try to change your moral preferences, as much as you can, to such a direction that they are fulfilled as often and as easily as possible, and violated as seldom and as mildly as possible? After all, this will guarantee that you will experience very much happiness and you don't need to feel moral outrage or sadness very often.

Well, that all depends on how you define happiness. I think there are varying levels of happiness. By constantly changing one's preferences, one might be able to consistently achieve some measure of monentary, fleeting happiness. But what about the happiness achieved from victory after a hard fought moral struggle? What about the happiness of seeing the values consisently planted in one's children come to fruition as they reach adulthood? These types of happiness (which I think are perhaps the greatest) would be forever off limits to a constant preference changer.

Pate:
I think that this principle has very bizarre effect to moral deliberations. It will not be the case, that you should be more concerned of such things as human rights in China, starvation in Africa etc. These are the kind of things that you will not be able to stop, no matter how much you want to, and any significant action to even slightly reduce them will require high contribution with relatively low results. Because of this, you should, according to your view, try to revise your attitudes and preferences to the direction of being less concerned about these things, as this will make it easier to feel happiness instead of frustation, moral outrage and sadness.

If a person does not are about anything beyond their own lifetime, does not want to be challenged in any way, can take no joy in small victories, and can happily bop along in a world full of suffering then the above might be the case for such a person. I am not that person.

Furthermore, that view makes less sense than ever in the 21st century where the world is inextricably interconnected and interdependent and stravation in Africa *does* impact people in other parts of the world. We live in an age driven by a global market - resulting in globalism in almost every other area as well. September 11th should have been a wake up call to all of us that the struggles of people in distant lands cannot be ignored.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
If you don't care at all about the person you are sacrificing yourself for then, yes, it would be a stupid thing to do. However, I would note that it's not impossible to care about a complete stranger.

The point is that in your moral system, it is stupid to care about complete strangers to such an extent, though it is possible. It will prevent any further happiness, the pursuit of which you said to be the foundation of your moral system.



The effect is broader than that in that improves the lives of people in the society at large, but the ultimate motivation is rooted in self interest. This seeming contradiction is possible because all the members of society are engaged in a giant non-zero sum game. One person's gain is not necessarily another person's loss. Non-zero sum logic is what makes the free market possible and it is no different with morality. One might speak of an invisble *moral* hand.

But obviously there are many situations where self-interest and common interest clash.



As for myself, it would be difficult to overcome such temptation. I can't say for sure what I would do in such a situation. However, under my moral paradigm, one could argue that steaing the money helps create a society in which stealing is acceptable. Since this is not the society most people want, the action would be immoral.

Hey, come on. Stealing once would not make such a big negative difference to the development of society.

Where did you get that "not the society most people want"? What most people want is (or should be, if taken consistently) ultimately irrelevant to the view that you've presented. Happiness of others works only as a means to an end, which is your own happiness. Any other role for the happiness of others in your moral system would raise the question of whether happiness of other people is something objectively valuable after all.


Well, that all depends on how you define happiness. I think there are varying levels of happiness. By constantly changing one's preferences, one might be able to consistently achieve some measure of monentary, fleeting happiness. But what about the happiness achieved from victory after a hard fought moral struggle? What about the happiness of seeing the values consisently planted in one's children come to fruition as they reach adulthood? These types of happiness (which I think are perhaps the greatest) would be forever off limits to a constant preference changer.

I didn't mean constantly changing preferences. I specifically meant changing one's preferences in the kind of issues where the "economy of happiness" does not warrant the current level of emphasis for certain moral value. (I gave human rights in China and hunger in Africa as examples.) Certainly there are many levels of happiness, and happiness through success in carrying out long-term plans can be more satisfying. But in the examples that I gave, you really have no real possibility to change situation in such a way that you'd have more reason to be happy than to be sad, worrying and frustrated, if you choose to care greatly about these matters.


If a person does not are about anything beyond their own lifetime, does not want to be challenged in any way, can take no joy in small victories, and can happily bop along in a world full of suffering then the above might be the case for such a person. I am not that person.

Yes, I don't belive that you are that person either. But in these cases, the ratio of happiness to frustration and sadness would be better if you tried to be less, not more worried about these matters. If any goals that you may choose really are not objectively better than any others, then there should be no reason against such a process of optimizing your values like this. Surely there would be other challenging long-term goals that would be more optimal and effective in the pursuit of happiness.



Furthermore, that view makes less sense than ever in the 21st century where the world is inextricably interconnected and interdependent and stravation in Africa *does* impact people in other parts of the world. We live in an age driven by a global market - resulting in globalism in almost every other area as well. September 11th should have been a wake up call to all of us that the struggles of people in distant lands cannot be ignored.

There certainly is a point to what you say. Such events do have also global consequences. But still, honestly, do you believe that the happiness-to-unhappiness-ratio in your personal life will be better if you consciously try to increase the value of issues like these in your moral preferences, instead of trying to increase the value of issues where you have better chances to succeed and make a real difference?

Of course, the fact is that we can't decide our personal values like that. We have a very strong tendency for altruism and respect for the worth of human life. And I'm convinced that this is objectively good thing. But my point is that we would not arrive at these values if we were to select them purely on the basis of seeking most happiness to ourselves.

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


I didn't mean to imply that some goals were "objectively" good and others "objectively" bad. This would be rather hopeless if everyone had wildly divergent goals. Fortunately, most humans share a lot of the same basic goals, so we are able to have a shared morality.

See, that's just the sort of thing that I was talking about. Allow me to edit your text, Kyle, to remove the subtext of moral absolutes, or at least the appearance of an overarching morality:

"I didn't mean to imply that some goals were "objectively" good and others "objectively" bad. This would be rather chaotic if everyone had wildly divergent goals. It so happens that most humans share a lot of the same basic goals, so we happen to have enough common elements to establish something resembling a collective morality."

Is "good", no?
;)

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:


See, that's just the sort of thing that I was talking about. Allow me to edit your text, Kyle, to remove the subtext of moral absolutes, or at least the appearance of an overarching morality:

"I didn't mean to imply that some goals were "objectively" good and others "objectively" bad. This would be rather chaotic if everyone had wildly divergent goals. It so happens that most humans share a lot of the same basic goals, so we happen to have enough common elements to establish something resembling a collective morality."

Is "good", no?
;)

It's good -- *if* you want a society that is not in perpetual moral chaos. Which I do. And so, fortunately, do most others.

[TheFiveSolas]

Kyle wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that some goals were "objectively" good and others "objectively" bad. This would be rather hopeless if everyone had wildly divergent goals. Fortunately, most humans share a lot of the same basic goals, so we are able to have a shared morality.


According to the above assertion doesn't it necessarily follow that, according to your view, nothing is really good or evil but rather it is only a matter of one's perspective/preference?

If that is the case, aren't terms like good and evil, right and wrong, emptied of their meaning?

Wouldn't those terms mean nothing more than "I approve of that action/goal" or "I don't approve of that action/goal"?

As a side question, is rape only wrong because of the society it would create if it were accepted? If so, doesn't it necessarily follow that rape is wrong only because, if it were accepted, many rapes would occur? What I mean by this is that I'm trying to reconcile your statement that it is meaningless to assert that a certain action is "good" or "evil" in and of itself with your assertion that what makes something "good" or "bad" is what goal it is working towards.

It appears that you are saying rape isn't wrong in and of itself, but only because the "goal", a society that allows rape, would be unacceptable because many rapes are "wrong" (by this you mean, not your preference). This seems to be self-contradictory (i.e., rape isn't inherently wrong, unless it would promote multiple rapes in which case it is relatively wrong, but not objectively wrong). NOTE: I chose the wording of that last sentence as a way to show the internal tension of your view, i.e., you want to say its wrong without saying it is wrong.

As you can see I'm having trouble making rational sense out of your use of terms like good, evil, right, wrong, when your view seems to make them refer to nothing more than personal preferences. Why use such terms if thats the case?

[citizenkyle]

Pate:
The point is that in your moral system, it is stupid to care about complete strangers to such an extent, though it is possible. It will prevent any further happiness, the pursuit of which you said to be the foundation of your moral system.

Some clarifications are in order. My moral system doesn't prescribe any particular goals. All it says is that people will strive to reach their goals (otherwise they are not much in the way of goals). Also, I never say that people *should* pursue their own happiness. Rather, I take it for granted as an inherent feature of human nature that they will pursue their own happiness. Indeed, I say "I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action." So for me, it is pointless to ask whether people *should* pursue happiness, because regardless of the answer to that question, people *will* pursue it.

Remember, I’m not talking about every fleeting happiness that comes one’s way. Consider yourself. I imagine your ultimate goal is something like “serving the Lord”. Sure, now and again you are faced with situations where you must bypass certain pleasures in the course of that service. But would you really be happy (in a deep meaningful sense) if you were to leave the service of the Lord to pursue these pleasures?

As for self-sacrifice, it's sort of a bad example because most decisions of that nature are based on instinct, not long deliberations on morality. I admit that if I thought it out, I would not sacrifice myself for a random stranger. Honestly, I don't think many can dissent from this opinion, because we all have the opportunity to save the lives of strangers right now. There are numerous men and women on their death beds even as we type who need kidney transplants to avoid death. Anyone willing to give up both kidneys (or even one) to these strangers?

Pate:
But obviously there are many situations where self-interest and common interest clash.

Yes, this is inevitable. If it did not happen, there would be no need for morality. We would live in a virtual Garden of Eden. But because the people in the "common interest" camp vastly outnumber the person(s) in the “self-interest” camp (at least for a given situation), they are able to enforce moral codes via punishments both informal (reproach, ostracization, etc) and formal (imprisonment, execution, etc).

Pate:
Hey, come on. Stealing once would not make such a big negative difference to the development of society.

Well, that's the easy rationalization, and why it would be difficult not to cave in to the temptation of stealing 10 million from someone who wouldn't miss it. There are many such rationalizations -- think of how much "good" I could do with this money!

Pate:
Where did you get that "not the society most people want"? What most people want is (or should be, if taken consistently) ultimately irrelevant to the view that you've presented.

I was a little lazy with my syntax. What I meant was: most people don't want a society featuring rampant theft. Thus, if *you* are in the majority (as I am) then it would be immoral for you.

Pate:
I didn't mean constantly changing preferences. I specifically meant changing one's preferences in the kind of issues where the "economy of happiness" does not warrant the current level of emphasis for certain moral value. (I gave human rights in China and hunger in Africa as examples.) Certainly there are many levels of happiness, and happiness through success in carrying out long-term plans can be more satisfying. But in the examples that I gave, you really have no real possibility to change situation in such a way that you'd have more reason to be happy than to be sad, worrying and frustrated, if you choose to care greatly about these matters.

There is definitely truth to what you say. For example, while I support policies of foreign aid and give to charities for the suffering, I don't lie awake nights fretting endlessly about the starving in Africa. And I suspect, neither do you. I do sometimes feel some guilt about my lucky position of (relative) wealth, but then I haven't sold all my possessions and taken up the life of Mother Theresa. And I suspect, neither have you. Obviously, we humans often do cost-benefit analyses when these issues crop up.

Pate:
There certainly is a point to what you say. Such events do have also global consequences. But still, honestly, do you believe that the happiness-to-unhappiness-ratio in your personal life will be better if you consciously try to increase the value of issues like these in your moral preferences, instead of trying to increase the value of issues where you have better chances to succeed and make a real difference?

This argument would've carried more weight in prior centuries. But our 21st world is faced with a truly global issues that it is woefully ill-equppied to handle. We have to start looking beyond the next fiscal year, because if we don't make a "real difference" on these issues soon, our personal issues aren't going to matter.

Pate:
Of course, the fact is that we can't decide our personal values like that. We have a very strong tendency for altruism and respect for the worth of human life. And I'm convinced that this is objectively good thing. But my point is that we would not arrive at these values if we were to select them purely on the basis of seeking most happiness to ourselves.

I disagree. Imagine a society where there was no respect for human life. You could be struck down at any moment. You would live in constant fear of capricious murder. Now, wouldn't you choose (for your own happiness) a society where human life *is* respected and you can walk down the street without facing the omnipresent specter of death?

[citizenkyle]

TheFiveSolas:
According to the above assertion doesn't it necessarily follow that, according to your view, nothing is really good or evil but rather it is only a matter of one's perspective/preference?

Yes. Morality is inherently subjective in my view.

TheFiveSolas:
If that is the case, aren't terms like good and evil, right and wrong, emptied of their meaning?

Wouldn't those terms mean nothing more than "I approve of that action/goal" or "I don't approve of that action/goal"?

Yes, in this way their meaning can be different from person to person. If this is what you mean by "empties them of meaning", then I suppose it does. But I don't think concepts have to be objective to have meaning.

TheFiveSolas:
As a side question, is rape only wrong because of the society it would create if it were accepted? If so, doesn't it necessarily follow that rape is wrong only because, if it were accepted, many rapes would occur? What I mean by this is that I'm trying to reconcile your statement that it is meaningless to assert that a certain action is "good" or "evil" in and of itself with your assertion that what makes something "good" or "bad" is what goal it is working towards.

It appears that you are saying rape isn't wrong in and of itself, but only because the "goal", a society that allows rape, would be unacceptable because many rapes are "wrong" (by this you mean, not your preference). This seems to be self-contradictory (i.e., rape isn't inherently wrong, unless it would promote multiple rapes in which case it is relatively wrong, but not objectively wrong). NOTE: I chose the wording of that last sentence as a way to show the internal tension of your view, i.e., you want to say its wrong without saying it is wrong.

You seem to have a handle on what I'm saying. But let me try to put another way that is, hopefully, clearer.

Consider a theoretical rapist. He wants to commit rapes, and he doesn't care if this creates a world full of rape. In fact, he doesn't even care if a loved one (or even he himself!) gets raped occasionally, as long as he can continue to rape unchecked. For him, rape is "good" then, right? Wrong. Maybe he doesn't mind rape, but what about murder? What about stealing? What about child molestation? Does he want to live in a society where people are free to do such things? Unless he is a complete sociopath, probably not. And the only way one can receive the benefits of living in a morally stable society is to tacitly agree to a list of proscribed actions. It doesn't matter if one wishes some of those actions weren't on the list. The majority (in theory) determines the list and violators will be punished with varying degrees of severity, depending on how "bad" their action is considered to the common interest. So, in other words, if you want to be part of a morally stable society (which most everyone does) and rape is on the society's list of proscribed actions (which it almost always is) then rape is "bad".

But what about *one* rape, especially if the rapist can get away with it? Surely, one rape wouldn't unbalance the whole society's moral system and the rapist could still enjoy the benefits of such a society. In essence, he'd be having his cake and eating it too. Such reasoning is why there will always be people at the margins breaking their societal covenant and "cheating" the system. The system can tolerate a little cheating (and compensate with police), but what if everyone thought this way? If everyone committed "just one" rape, murder, etc. the any policing efforts would be overwhelmed and the system would collapse into moral anarchy. Thus, anyone who "cheats" the system contributes to this end.

TheFiveSolas:
As you can see I'm having trouble making rational sense out of your use of terms like good, evil, right, wrong, when your view seems to make them refer to nothing more than personal preferences. Why use such terms if thats the case?

I can't think of any better terms. :)

[J. J. Ramsey]

J. J. Ramsey:
Are you so sure? To choose to not do something because it would harm me would generally be considered a pragmatic decision, not a moral one.

citizenkyle:
I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive.


A decision can made for moral reasons yet still be a good decision in a pragmatic sense. However, if someone does an outwardly moral act for purely pragmatic reasons, then that one's heart is said not to be in the right place.


J. J. Ramsey:
Someone who holds to the understanding that x can be good in and of itself may respond to the question "Why is x good?" with the answer mu (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/mu.html)."

citizenkyle:
I suppose they could. But then they would have to demonstrate that my assumption was incorrect.


Your implicit assumption is that if something cannot be verbally defined, then it is meaningless.


I can see the point raised, however, the question must be asked: If we can't define it, how to do we know what "good" really means?


Same way you know what yellow is. You just know. Normally, we call this knowledge "conscience."

Of course, at this point, things get tricky. A human being's moral sense of direction is rather like one's physical sense of direction: a useful rough guide, but one that can easily get off track without the help of maps. I think you see where I can go from here.

[citizenkyle]

J. J. Ramsey:
A decision can made for moral reasons yet still be a good decision in a pragmatic sense. However, if someone does an outwardly moral act for purely pragmatic reasons, then that one's heart is said not to be in the right place.

In my view, all moral decisions would be ultimately pragmatic in the sense of creating a certain type of society, but might not directly benefit of the acting agent.

J. J. Ramsey:
Your implicit assumption is that if something cannot be verbally defined, then it is meaningless.

Well, that suspicion is certainly raised. Yet, I agree that *some* things which have meaning cannot be verbally defined (at least precisely).

J. J. Ramsey:
Same way you know what yellow is. You just know. Normally, we call this knowledge "conscience."

Of course, at this point, things get tricky. A human being's moral sense of direction is rather like one's physical sense of direction: a useful rough guide, but one that can easily get off track without the help of maps. I think you see where I can go from here.

Right. And I agree with you on the moral sense (genetics in my view) and use of maps. I just use a different map. :)

[Epoetker]

Kyle:

I'm a bit interested in the connection between these two positions:

In my view, all moral decisions would be ultimately pragmatic in the sense of creating a certain type of society, but might not directly benefit of the acting agent.

I agree with you on the moral sense (genetics in my view)

Would genetics be predisposed to favor a moral sense that did not directly benefit the acting agent? Or do you believe that all moral 'sense' of that type is created and reinforced through cultural neurological stimulus? Among humans especially, the non-'sense'-ical have a penchant for quashing the sensitive when it suits them. Books on the subject?

[J. J. Ramsey]

Epoetker:
Would genetics be predisposed to favor a moral sense that did not directly benefit the acting agent?

It might, if the members of a given species, even if not genetically related, need to work together to survive.

[citizenkyle]

Epoetker:
Would genetics be predisposed to favor a moral sense that did not directly benefit the acting agent? Or do you believe that all moral 'sense' of that type is created and reinforced through cultural neurological stimulus? Among humans especially, the non-'sense'-ical have a penchant for quashing the sensitive when it suits them. Books on the subject?

Genetics can be disposed to favor a moral sense not directly benefitting the agent. There is a type of genetic altruism found in many species of animals besides humans (chimps, birds, etc). However, this altruism is strongly tied with reciprocity. In other words, kindness is rewarded with kindness (one bird cleaning another of ticks), but cheating (one bird failing to reciprocate in the cleaning) is met with punishment. Thus, we have genetic justice. To be fair though, genetics generally favors directly selfish behavior.

This worked well enough in hunter gatherer societies made up of small, isolated tribes. But once people began to settle into towns and villages, a new morality was needed. Unchecked selfish behavior made for a very unstable and untenable arrangement. The towns that didn't disintegrate into to chaos realized the need to make a covenant (informal at first) with their neighbors. They realized that agreeing to check one own selfishness to some degree was actually advantageous (so long as everyone else did too).

There are some interesting paralells with Christian theology here. One might consider genetics our "sin nature" and our attempt to suppress many of these baser motives in order to participate in society our "struggle with sin".

Two great books on these subjects are:

"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins -- not surprisingly this covers the genetic part.
"Non-Zero" by Robert Wright -- this covers the emergence of morality in society part.

While bearing no particular relation to each other, these books would make great companion pieces on this subject.

[Ishmael]

;)

[J. J. Ramsey]

There is a problem with thinking of morality simply in terms of societal self-preservation. It can be exemplified, oddly enough, by an episode of the science fiction show Stargate SG-1.

The basic plot was that a world had been defending itself from the Goa'uld (the chief bad guys of the show) with ion cannons. However, the Goa'uld developed shields that protected them from the ion cannons. The government of this world then made a secret bargain with the Goa'uld: in exchange for their survival, they would make weapons for the Goa'uld that would allow the Goa'uld to devastate and conquer pretty much everyone else in the galaxy. Eventually, one of the denizens of this world, along with the SG-1 team (the good-guy regular characters), finds out about this bargain and ruins it -- knowing that it will lead to the Goa'uld taking revenge on his world and probably destroying it.

Now, as far as the show is concerned, wrecking the bargain was the right thing to do. However, if morality is a question of societal self-preservation, is doing something that would cause the destruction of one's society, and one's genetic brethren, really a good thing?

[TheFiveSolas]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epoetker:
Would genetics be predisposed to favor a moral sense that did not directly benefit the acting agent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It might, if the members of a given species, even if not genetically related, need to work together to survive.



I find assertions like this to be extremely problematic for at least a couple of reasons.

1) To say that "genetics" is "predisposed to favor" anything is sloppy language. Genetics doesn't "favor" anything.
What I think was being asserted here is that certain behavior is "allegedly" traced solely to the genetic makeup of the creature being spoken of AND this behavior offers a higher selective value (which natural selection then acts upon).

2) I know of not ONE scientific study that has definitively linked behavior SOLELY to genetics. Nor have I seen a single scientific study that has definitively linked a certain genetic makeup to a greater selective value acted upon by natural selection. Rather, all I have seen are books like Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" that offer very sophisticated theories that amount to nothing more than "just so" stories. In other words, books like "The Selfish Gene" are ideologically driven, as opposed to being based upon actual scientific data. The author attempts to offer a cleverly spun tale of how things MUST have happened given the conclusion that they already hold to (i.e., that morality MUST be able to be explained SOLELY by means of naturalistic philosophy/principles).

[citizenkyle]

J. J. Ramsey:
Now, as far as the show is concerned, wrecking the bargain was the right thing to do. However, if morality is a question of societal self-preservation, is doing something that would cause the destruction of one's society, and one's genetic brethren, really a good thing?

This is an interesting moral conundrum. We might cast it in more contemporary terms. If you were a high ranking US govt. official and found out that the US was planning a series of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, would you defect and warn the target countries, even though this would likely result in strikes against the US? What would Christian morality recommend?

[citizenkyle]

TheFiveSolas:
2) I know of not ONE scientific study that has definitively linked behavior SOLELY to genetics.

Really? Do you suppose ants think about what they are going to do? How do they know exactly what duties to carry out (and exactly how to execute them) from birth, without being trained?

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Really? Do you suppose ants think about what they are going to do? How do they know exactly what duties to carry out (and exactly how to execute them) from birth, without being trained?

1) What he thinks of ants has little to do with whether or not a study has been conducted.
2) I strongly suspect that he is referring either exclusively to humans, or at least to those organisms which exhibit signs of sapience.

Though I could be wrong.:)

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:

1) What he thinks of ants has little to do with whether or not a study has been conducted.

There have been many studies on ants. It has been determined that workers have a certain genetic makeup, soldiers another, queens another, and so on. Each ant behaves according to its type. They don’t have the brains to learn, and they behave appropriately from birth. I think that’s pretty definitive in implicating genetics.

Captain Ochre:
2) I strongly suspect that he is referring either exclusively to humans, or at least to those organisms which exhibit signs of sapience.


Since TheFiveSolas made his point in conjunction with his comments on “The Selfish Gene” (which hardly mentions humans but spends considerable time on ants and the other social insects), I assumed otherwise. But it hardly matters. Once it has been established that genes do influence behavior some animals, there is no reason other animals should be exempted. Intelligent mammals (such as horses) are still significantly less intelligent than humans, yet exhibit various behaviors (such as walking) almost from birth. As for humans specifically -- all human societies, for all their cultural differences, are remarkably similar in behavior when compared to all potential behaviors (or when compared against other animal behaviors). I’m not contending that genes completely control behavior. But, in light of these facts, to deny the genes any influence would seem to border on the ludicrous.

[TheFiveSolas]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheFiveSolas:
2) I know of not ONE scientific study that has definitively linked behavior SOLELY to genetics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? Do you suppose ants think about what they are going to do? How do they know exactly what duties to carry out (and exactly how to execute them) from birth, without being trained?

Kyle,
I think you misunderstood my statement. The debate over nature VS. nurture still rages on, which is why I stated that I have not seen one scientific study that has definitively linked behavior SOLELY (key word) to genetics.

Being someone with a backround in Biology and Chemistry I'm aware that there is a link between behavior and genetics but I challenge the assertion that it is SOLELY due to genetics. This is what has never been proven.

In addition, my critique was also leveled at the ad hoc argument that certain behavior is (has been) favored by natural selection. This type of argument starts with an assumption and then attempts to spin a clever just-so story as a means of filling in the void where scientific (testable) evidence is sorely lacking. In other words, it starts with the desired conclusion (i.e., evolutionary positive selective value for certain behavior over against other behavior MUST be the cause of moral and ethical behavior). I call this the "Evolution of the Gaps" fallacy.

[citizenkyle]

TheFiveSolas:
I think you misunderstood my statement. The debate over nature VS. nurture still rages on, which is why I stated that I have not seen one scientific study that has definitively linked behavior SOLELY (key word) to genetics.

Being someone with a backround in Biology and Chemistry I'm aware that there is a link between behavior and genetics but I challenge the assertion that it is SOLELY due to genetics. This is what has never been proven.

Oops. Sloppy reading on my part. And you even capitalized it for me! :) As to humans, I agree that it has never been proven that behavior is SOLELY due to genetics. Nor is likely to ever be proven, as experience plays a demonstrable role in developing human behavior.

Ant behavior, on the other hand, does appear to be linked SOLELY to genetics as they don't have the brain capacity to learn much of anything.

TheFiveSolas:
In addition, my critique was also leveled at the ad hoc argument that certain behavior is (has been) favored by natural selection. This type of argument starts with an assumption and then attempts to spin a clever just-so story as a means of filling in the void where scientific (testable) evidence is sorely lacking.

I think there is some very good evidence indicating an evolutionary origin for certain behaviors. For instance, we can compare the sexual behaviors of various species and note that males tend to pursue of strategy of indiscrimnate sexual conquest and child abandonment. Females on the other hand tend to be very selective and invest much effort in rearing children. This behaviors make perfect sense in an evolutionary paradigm where males (as a result of the ridiculously cheap cost of manufacturing sperm) can have virtually unlimited offspring, whereas females (due to the high cost of manufacturing eggs) can only have a very limited number of children.

TheFiveSolas:
In other words, it starts with the desired conclusion (i.e., evolutionary positive selective value for certain behavior over against other behavior MUST be the cause of moral and ethical behavior).

I think some rudimentary moral behavior can be traced to genetics, however, I would argue (and have argued through out this thread) that most moral behavior, especially what we consider to be "higher morals", has resulted from the rise of civilization.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Kyle--i dig your openness at Tekton. anywho, i haven't read through all of these posts, so forgive me if i bring up a point that's been addressed already.
ya said--

Indeed, the first part of my initial post was dedicated to the thesis that morality is inherently relative.

**8** relative to what, exactly?

however, the question must be asked: If we can't define it, how to do we know what "good" really means?

**7** my take is that the criteria for defining and evaluating a moral action is determined by an aesthetics of sorts. to use an imperfect analogy, life is like a symphony, and our actions would be the melodies we bring to the score. the melodies we introduce would be the result of our response to our perception of an objective substance or event. whether or not any particular moral action's 'validity' can be argued for (such that it can be reduced to analytic statements resulting in a tautology--which is the only thing that can ultimately satisfy the strictly logical format of the question as it is being addressed here) is ultimately irrelevant to its reality and claim on our life, for the simple reason that perception, though not identical in form to deduction, is a means whereby we apprehend truth (or goodness or beauty).
hence i agree that morality is relative and that there is a hierarchy of morals. yet, according to me, it would be relative to the Triune God, and the hierarchy would be determined by participation in his being.
so--

I suppose a Christian would answer something like "God has written the knowledge of good in our hearts".

**8** to an extent, yes. its somewhat similar to art. you don't argue for its beauty, it is a matter of perceiving the form of the object. our ability to perceive is somewhat impaired, but there seems to be a decent amount of common ground, and our intuitions are such that they can be modified.
ya said--

I actually do think there is something to that - except that I would suggest that this "internal knowledge" is written in our minds by genetics and soietal experience. The genetics part explains the similarities in human moral systems - the experience part explains the differences.

**7** it still seems awkward, to me atleast, that we would have any moral systems at all under this framework. the question that lies at the bottom still remains unanswered; namely, whence the perception and simultaneous draw towards this or that object which inspires or commands this or that action?
peace.

[citizenkyle]

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** say hey Kyle--i dig your openness at Tekton.

Thanks. That's good to hear.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** relative to what, exactly?

Relative to the goals of the acting agent. If you haven't read the first post of this thread already, you might check it out. That's where I attempted to spell out my moral system.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** my take is that the criteria for defining and evaluating a moral action is determined by an aesthetics of sorts. to use an imperfect analogy, life is like a symphony, and our actions would be the melodies we bring to the score. the melodies we introduce would be the result of our response to our perception of an objective substance or event. whether or not any particular moral action's 'validity' can be argued for (such that it can be reduced to analytic statements resulting in a tautology--which is the only thing that can ultimately satisfy the strictly logical format of the question as it is being addressed here) is ultimately irrelevant to its reality and claim on our life, for the simple reason that perception, though not identical in form to deduction, is a means whereby we apprehend truth (or goodness or beauty).
hence i agree that morality is relative and that there is a hierarchy of morals. yet, according to me, it would be relative to the Triune God, and the hierarchy would be determined by participation in his being.

That works *if* you believe in the Triune God and wish to serve him.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** it still seems awkward, to me atleast, that we would have any moral systems at all under this framework. the question that lies at the bottom still remains unanswered; namely, whence the perception and simultaneous draw towards this or that object which inspires or commands this or that action?
peace.

We are all drawn towards happines by our nature, i.e. genetics. But, in a civilzed society, must sometimes act counter to certain genetic impulses in order to achieve a greater happiness.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Coolman Kyle--

Thanks. That's good to hear.

**8** youbetcha. its always nice to see calm reason sailing the ocean of mind. so much better than chaps and lasses talking lots o' nonsense.
anywho, might i ask what, if anything, draws you towards Christianity?
ya said--

Relative to the goals of the acting agent.

**7** sounds like utilitarianism in the long run. will interact with ya first post below ...

That works *if* you believe in the Triune God and wish to serve him.

**8** a person who falls off of a cliff will hit the bottom, and not just the bottom insofar as they understood it to be. hence my moral system works regardless of what you believe in, for according to it God is the objective transcendental source and term for every action anyone does or can do. if you walk by a bum on the street and feel pressed to give him money, the ultimate reason why is (according to me) because the Triune Personal God who is love is the ground and presupposition of your perception of everything you encounter in the world.
ya said--

We are all drawn towards happines by our nature, i.e. genetics.

**7** forgive me for being obtuse, but i fail to see how genetics, being essentially impersonal, can ever realize happiness or feel drawn towards anything. if genetics is to have any play at all in morality, it must first be coordinated to a personhood of which it is not the cause. that's how i see it.
ya said--

But, in a civilzed society, must sometimes act counter to certain genetic impulses in order to achieve a greater happiness.

**8** it would seem that the fact that the society is civilized already presupposes an implicit adherence to an objective morality (which doesn't necessarily imply 'an objective set of actions'). the fact that happiness and this objective morality are coincident is, of course, what we would expect if the source and term of our being and action is loving and personal.
now, to your original post--

Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

**7** mmmm, until you define the variable. for example, "Why is doing the good (= 'x') good?"
every moral claim is ultimately an analytic statement, which in the end means that it can be reduced to 'x because x'; hence it is a matter of the person perceiving the action, object, etc. it has nothing to do with deduction unless it is already presupposed that the moral worth of actions cannot repose on themselves, which is actually begging the question.
i wonder why a tautological statement invalidates the claim which accompanies it? for example, you think your wife is beautiful because....?

For the Christian, the ultimate goal might be something like "loving, serving, and obeying God." Thus, in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much booty was available for the looting, the Christian would have to consider stealing inconsistent with his ultimate goal, and therefore "bad".

**8** i think that a Christian in such a situation would be more inclined to give a Kantian explanation based on the categorical imperative, which in the final analysis would mean something like "this action is counter to that which is."
of course, in the end, more happiness would result from the Christians not chasing after da' booty, but this fact is consequent upon the rock bottom fact of reality, and not vice-versa. hence it is to this rock bottom fact that we must have recourse in all of our moral deliberations.

whose ultimate goal is to "disobey God and gather riches for the Dark Lord". How would one go about arguing with this person that stealing is bad? Clearly, any contention about the will of God would not sway such a person.

**7** this only because the Knight of Dark Lord Satan in question undoubtedly has a very muddled understanding of God which doesn't correspond to reality. i have, in fact, worked with such a person before.
the way to convince him would be to show him the contradiction that must lie at the bottom of his system (i.e., "To be consistent, you would want to destroy all life, since God is ultimately life. Yet in order to do this, you must destroy your own life as well, the consequence of which would be your inability to reap the benefits of your moral system. ergo...")

The only way to convince the Satanist not to steal would be to couch one's reasoning within the framework of their ultimate goal.

**8** and the only reason why this could work, according to me, would be due to the fact that the Ultimate Reality upon which happiness oriented goals are dependant is God--a God who is the source and term for all action.

But the bottom line is that there are no objective standards that apply to all. "Good" and "bad" must be calibrated according to each individual's goals.

**7** actually, we aren't too far apart here. if God is the ultimate metaphysical fact, happiness would, in the end, of course be entailed by acting according to his desires.
if we go by Kant, then rational consideration by itself would lead us to have a decent amount of agreement as to what is and isn't the right thing to do.
it would certainly work for the Servant of the Dark Lord Satan in question, except for such people are more likely to go by emotion anyway. atleast the one i knew was.

So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness

**8** hmm, seems too vague. for example, ask any normal high school student, 'what do you want out of life?' they'll answer, 'hmm ... i guess just to be happy.' well and good. ask them, 'and how do you plan on doing this?' don't expect an answer.
all moral activity is actualized in concrete situations, yet 'happiness' is (in our day and age) realized primarily as an emotional ephiphemenon with little if any connection to that which caused it--a 'universal' being not necessarily tied down to any concrete thing or action (except maybe sex and drug taking). yet...

I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action

**7** ...agreed.

Short term desires must be risk managed so as to not thwart long term happiness.

**8** i think i basically agree with this, and what follows in the subsequent paragraph, until we come to--

agreements of this sort are how moral systems develop out of nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

**7** 'moral systems develop out of nothing'? as i said above, i would say that moral systems develop out of interaction with an objective reality which is, infact, the ultimate metaphysical ground for everything. ex nihilo, nihilo fit.
i don't not steal from the helpless old man up the street because i fear what might happen to me if i'm caught--i don't believe there is any chance i could get caught. i don't steal from him because i recognize in him the image of God the Son, and in lovingly interacting with him, i mirror the Trinity. hence, though i could use the money and i know where it is and how to get it, the thought doesn't even enter my mind qua temptation. it has nothing to do with deduction or calculating what the long-term results would be (which is impossible anyway)--it has everything to do with perceiving the situation as it actually is.

If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest. For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list.

**8** actually, i don't think that belief in God eases the burden all that much in this area. i think that worship would be far more helpful. ...

"What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?".

**7** hmm, the implicit inclusion of your descendants in this makes me think that you'd opt for Kant's categorical imperative, yes? if not (that is, if your morality isn't to be based on some transcendental reason which is universal in application), how do you justify casting the vote for them?

"What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?".

**8** see Henry Bugbee's _The Inward Morning_, and Jack Kerouac's _The Dharma Bums_. :thumb:
peace!

[citizenkyle]

phantaz sunlyk:

anywho, might i ask what, if anything, draws you towards Christianity?

I was raised Christian (Catholic) and live a Christian dominated society (USA). I am a lover of books and the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in history. On top of that, I am a history buff and the Bible is one of our oldest history books. There lie my interests in Christianity. I can't say I am particularly drawn to it in terms of a philosophical system, although I do find merit in many of Jesus' moral teachings.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** sounds like utilitarianism in the long run. will interact with ya first post below ...

There is certainly some similarity to utilitarianism.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** a person who falls off of a cliff will hit the bottom, and not just the bottom insofar as they understood it to be. hence my moral system works regardless of what you believe in, for according to it God is the objective transcendental source and term for every action anyone does or can do. if you walk by a bum on the street and feel pressed to give him money, the ultimate reason why is (according to me) because the Triune Personal God who is love is the ground and presupposition of your perception of everything you encounter in the world.
ya said—

Right. But I don't believe in God. So the questions I'm interested in answering are:
1) From whence springs morality without God?
2) Why should I be moral?
3) How can I convince other non-believers that they should be moral?

That is the aim of my system.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** forgive me for being obtuse, but i fail to see how genetics, being essentially impersonal, can ever realize happiness or feel drawn towards anything. if genetics is to have any play at all in morality, it must first be coordinated to a personhood of which it is not the cause. that's how i see it.

If genetics can influence or determine behavior (as I have argued earlier in this thread) then it can bear directly on morality.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** it would seem that the fact that the society is civilized already presupposes an implicit adherence to an objective morality.

I agree. I argued that the (agreed to) objective morality arises from the participation of several self-interested parties in a society. The word "civilized" was merely meant to distinguish sendentary village/town/city/state societies from nomadic hunter-gatherer band societies.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** mmmm, until you define the variable. for example, "Why is doing the good (= 'x') good?"
every moral claim is ultimately an analytic statement, which in the end means that it can be reduced to 'x because x'; hence it is a matter of the person perceiving the action, object, etc. it has nothing to do with deduction unless it is already presupposed that the moral worth of actions cannot repose on themselves, which is actually begging the question.
i wonder why a tautological statement invalidates the claim which accompanies it? for example, you think your wife is beautiful because....?

A tautological statement does not necessarily invalidate the claim accompanying it, but it lacks explanatory power.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** i think that a Christian in such a situation would be more inclined to give a Kantian explanation based on the categorical imperative, which in the final analysis would mean something like "this action is counter to that which is."
of course, in the end, more happiness would result from the Christians not chasing after da' booty, but this fact is consequent upon the rock bottom fact of reality, and not vice-versa. hence it is to this rock bottom fact that we must have recourse in all of our moral deliberations.

If by “in the end” you mean heaven as opposed to hell, then I agree. But again, this is only convincing to someone who believes Christianity is true.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** hmm, seems too vague. for example, ask any normal high school student, 'what do you want out of life?' they'll answer, 'hmm ... i guess just to be happy.' well and good. ask them, 'and how do you plan on doing this?' don't expect an answer.
all moral activity is actualized in concrete situations, yet 'happiness' is (in our day and age) realized primarily as an emotional ephiphemenon with little if any connection to that which caused it--a 'universal' being not necessarily tied down to any concrete thing or action (except maybe sex and drug taking). yet...

Yes, “happiness” is rather vague. There are many levels and types of happiness ranging from the momentary pleasure of satiated lust to the protracted joy of watching your children grow up. One must prioritize one’s levels of happiness.




phantaz sunlyk:
**7** 'moral systems develop out of nothing'? as i said above, i would say that moral systems develop out of interaction with an objective reality which is, infact, the ultimate metaphysical ground for everything. ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

I didn’t say from “nothing”. I said from nothing more than enlightened self-interest. Which is definitely something.

phantaz sunlyk:
i don't not steal from the helpless old man up the street because i fear what might happen to me if i'm caught--i don't believe there is any chance i could get caught. i don't steal from him because i recognize in him the image of God the Son, and in lovingly interacting with him, i mirror the Trinity. hence, though i could use the money and i know where it is and how to get it, the thought doesn't even enter my mind qua temptation. it has nothing to do with deduction or calculating what the long-term results would be (which is impossible anyway)--it has everything to do with perceiving the situation as it actually is.

Interesting. But I don’t think most people (even a lot of Christians) avoid stealing for that reason. Many we can be sure do not, since many actually steal. And again, my interest is in determining a reason for non-believers to avoid stealing.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** hmm, the implicit inclusion of your descendants in this makes me think that you'd opt for Kant's categorical imperative, yes? if not (that is, if your morality isn't to be based on some transcendental reason which is universal in application), how do you justify casting the vote for them?

My descendants have no voice in what we do *now* – even though our actions will greatly shape the world they must live in. It is the burden of each generation to pave the way for the generations that follow.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Kyle; its a pleasure to talk to you.
gotta be quick tonite, rum thing.


I can't say I am particularly drawn to it in terms of a philosophical system,

**8** aye, nor am i (but i wonder what you mean by a 'philosophical system'? Swinburne, Aquinas, Augustine?) i don't really like any philosophical systems.
my favorite philosophers aren't Christian--chaps like Camus, Henry Bugbee, etc.

although I do find merit in many of Jesus' moral teachings.

**7** what about the person of Jesus?

Right. But I don't believe in God. So the questions I'm interested in answering are:
1) From whence springs morality without God?
2) Why should I be moral?
3) How can I convince other non-believers that they should be moral?

**8** then it seems to me that your system follows quite consistently from your premises.
i thought you were trying to prove that the idea of an objective morality was intrinsically incoherent or some such. my bad.

If genetics can influence or determine behavior (as I have argued earlier in this thread) then it can bear directly on morality.

**7** my question goes further back i suppose--to the metaphysical foundation, if any, of qualia and cognition, which a genetic influence on cognitive behavior presupposes.

I agree. I argued that the (agreed to) objective morality arises from the participation of several self-interested parties in a society.

**8** i disagree that it arises from self interest. i think that happiness and the Good are bound to be coincident, and that moral behavior comes from recognition of the good, with an aim for happiness being of indirect importance. the finding is in the seeking if you're on the right path and moving.

A tautological statement does not necessarily invalidate the claim accompanying it, but it lacks explanatory power.

**7** and my claim is that explanatory power is not what is needed in this regard--perception is what is needed. your wife is having a hard day, and you comfort her. why? because you love her and you see and feel her pain.

If by “in the end” you mean heaven as opposed to hell, then I agree. But again, this is only convincing to someone who believes Christianity is true.

**8** my claim would work in your moral system too, as the consequences of greed are obvious enough, unlike most moral actions.

There are many levels and types of happiness ranging from the momentary pleasure of satiated lust to the protracted joy of watching your children grow up. One must prioritize one’s levels of happiness.

**7** it seems to me as though Soma would be a live option in your moral system, yes?

Interesting. But I don’t think most people (even a lot of Christians) avoid stealing for that reason. Many we can be sure do not, since many actually steal.

**8** well, how can you know why a person doesn't steal if they are stealing?
i disagree with you here.
another example. i know a man who wants more than anything to live in simple solitude. yet his father, who isn't psychologically equipped to live alone, needs his company. the one who wants to live alone is constantly agitated by his father's obnoxiousness and lack of depth and rudeness. yet he stays there. he doesn't do it for any gain. he does it because he loves his father--in seeing his father he sees the image of Christ. he does it because he sees the human person within, recognizes that dignity, and responds with compassion.
that is the only reason he stays--a certain manner of perception.

It is the burden of each generation to pave the way for the generations that follow.

**7** i don't see how this could follow from enlightened self interest since backwards causation is (probably) logically impossible; i do see how it would follow from a perception at the intuitive level, however.
peace.

[TheFiveSolas]

Kyle wrote:

Right. But I don't believe in God. So the questions I'm interested in answering are:
1) From whence springs morality without God?
2) Why should I be moral?
3) How can I convince other non-believers that they should be moral?

That is the aim of my system.


Don't the above statements #'s 2 & 3 only have meaning IF there exists an objective system of morality and not merely one that is already one's preference? Or to put it another way, you've already stated that morality is completely subjective (note: I used the word completely which you did not use, however you did deny that ethical behavior is objective) and yet you now assert that you are trying to get others to be "moral". These two assertions do not comport with each other since according to your own statements, morality is subjective, which means that in the eyes of each individual they are already acting morally. Therefore, in your assertion that you are trying to convince others to be moral you are denying the subjectivity of moral values and substituting a moral system that has an objective component (i.e., one that TRANSCENDS the individual).

[Sheepdog]

i apologize for going off topic, but, citizenkyle, i'd have to say that i am impressed by your well mannered and well thought out posts. especially for a skeptic (heheh, sorry, just had to get a backhanded comment in there somewhere :dunce: ). i am humbled by your composure :)

[citizenkyle]

Sheepdog:
i apologize for going off topic, but, citizenkyle, i'd have to say that i am impressed by your well mannered and well thought out posts. especially for a skeptic (heheh, sorry, just had to get a backhanded comment in there somewhere :dunce: ). i am humbled by your composure :)

Well thank you -- I guess. :) One of my goals is to help break down the "siege mentality" which often exists between Christians and Skeptics. If we are going to have discussions, they might as well be productive. To this end, I have begun a project with a Christian named JP Holding (he's somewhat well known around these parts, perhaps you've heard of him?). Our project is titled "Scholarly Diplomacy" and can be followed here: http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin03.html

[citizenkyle]

TheFiveSolas:
Don't the above statements #'s 2 & 3 only have meaning IF there exists an objective system of morality and not merely one that is already one's preference? Or to put it another way, you've already stated that morality is completely subjective (note: I used the word completely which you did not use, however you did deny that ethical behavior is objective) and yet you now assert that you are trying to get others to be "moral". These two assertions do not comport with each other since according to your own statements, morality is subjective, which means that in the eyes of each individual they are already acting morally. Therefore, in your assertion that you are trying to convince others to be moral you are denying the subjectivity of moral values and substituting a moral system that has an objective component (i.e., one that TRANSCENDS the individual).

Hmmm. I wish I had less confusing and loaded terms to use than "moral" and "good", etc , but I don't. Let me restate my aims with (hopefully) greater clarity.

1) From whence springs morality without God? (My answer was genetics to a small degree, and societal interaction to a much larger degree).
2) Given this inherently relative origin of morality, what specific moral system should I adopt in order to achieve happiness?
3) How can I convince other non-believers to adopt a moral system similar to my own?

[Satori]

I have found that atheists are every bit as ethical and moral and theists, and I think that's extremely evident.

my 2 cents

Satori

[Sheepdog]

citizenkyle:


Well thank you -- I guess. :) One of my goals is to help break down the "siege mentality" which often exists between Christians and Skeptics. If we are going to have discussions, they might as well be productive. To this end, I have begun a project with a Christian named JP Holding (he's somewhat well known around these parts, perhaps you've heard of him?). Our project is titled "Scholarly Diplomacy" and can be followed here: http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin03.html

heheh, the reason i came here in the first place was to follow Holding and Till's (sadly defunct) debate. i know Holding, and i am working on a page for him regarding logical fallacies.

heh, interesting project. i have no disagreements about your assemssment of modern Christianity (sadly).

kewl

[Epoetker]

Kyle,

I'm still thinking that this endeavor is going to come up a bit on the fruitless side as far as combining both authority and effectiveness. For instance:

But here is where theists have it easy. If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest.

One must define the term 'best interest.' In the Christian case, those deep in the faith are more concerned about following the LORD's best interest. This generally involves quite a bit of sacrifice, especially if it's something like a missionary post in a borderline-hostile Third World country. The promise of eternal reward and the desire to please a transcendental Personality is the deciding factor here, because work like that is not always safe and not always fun. The exhiliration I've heard from those who come back from such work mainly revolve around the recollection of supernatural experience and the changing of the direction of new Christian lives. Both seem to bring happiness to the speaker more in their confirmation of reciprocity from the Personality in question than from any earthly version of happiness. It's the farthest thing from genetics that one can muster, yet the effect on the culture(and, by extension, the genetics) is positive from the earthly perspective as well.

For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list. And, we must constantly reexamine the list in light of new information and circumstances, making changes as necessary.

Forgive me if the utilization of public debate seems so far to mean "try what's popular in the culture at the moment, see how happy it's made people, if bad results happen, ditch the broken lives and try something new." Or, the same old fumbling that society, free or no, generally goes through anyway.:hrm: Might'nt tradition, the democracy of the dead, be allowed some say in the matter?

This is a truly democratic process. Because every action an individual takes, however minor, helps to mold society for good or ill, the question that is often asked during this process is: "What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?".

As a Christian, I am not so concerned about the effects of actions on society as the effect of actions on individual people, most especially the actor. So far, the Christian view has been much more comprehensively voluminious on the subject( try www.puritansermons.com for the sermons of the psychologists of the day. The refusal of many secular psychologists to moralize on the effects of sin upon one's psychiatric outlook means that adducing your atheist morality is going to require more at the beginning from Bartlett's Familar Quotations than from Freud.)

"But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune. Interestingly, these moral foundations are well captured by a couple of old religious adages - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

And here's where my central question is brought up: Aren't you still using words, attitudes, slogans, and first principles from a traditionally Catholic Christian background to gain support for an atheist morality? You cannot escape your past very easily. And given the finely tuned moral sense it's given you, I wouldn't try:angel:

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


Hmmm. I wish I had less confusing and loaded terms to use than "moral" and "good", etc , but I don't. Let me restate my aims with (hopefully) greater clarity.

1) From whence springs morality without God? (My answer was genetics to a small degree, and societal interaction to a much larger degree).
2) Given this inherently relative origin of morality, what specific moral system should I adopt in order to achieve happiness?
3) How can I convince other non-believers to adopt a moral system similar to my own?

Number two really jumps out at me, given that morals are properly referred to as "ought"s.
Here, Kyle seems to wonder (from a relativist perspective, no less!) which is the "right" moral system for him.

Kyle--isn't that nonsensical? I'm being serious, here.

[citizenkyle]

Epoetker:
One must define the term 'best interest.' In the Christian case, those deep in the faith are more concerned about following the LORD's best interest. This generally involves quite a bit of sacrifice, especially if it's something like a missionary post in a borderline-hostile Third World country. The promise of eternal reward and the desire to please a transcendental Personality is the deciding factor here, because work like that is not always safe and not always fun. The exhiliration I've heard from those who come back from such work mainly revolve around the recollection of supernatural experience and the changing of the direction of new Christian lives. Both seem to bring happiness to the speaker more in their confirmation of reciprocity from the Personality in question than from any earthly version of happiness. It's the farthest thing from genetics that one can muster, yet the effect on the culture(and, by extension, the genetics) is positive from the earthly perspective as well.

Genetics has built in to us the ability to calculate and weigh immediate sacrifices against later gratification. Since, as you said, Christians have the "promise of an eternal reward", that could certainly justify some immediate sacrifices. As well, you noted that missionaries often consider that their feelings of achievement outweigh whatever creature discomforts they suffer. None of that runs contrary to my view.

Epoetker:
Forgive me if the utilization of public debate seems so far to mean "try what's popular in the culture at the moment, see how happy it's made people, if bad results happen, ditch the broken lives and try something new." Or, the same old fumbling that society, free or no, generally goes through anyway.:hrm: Might'nt tradition, the democracy of the dead, be allowed some say in the matter?

Of course. Tradition is a very important factor in determining public policy. So long as we don't allow tradition to blind us and stifle necessary change, it is a great foundation.

Epoetker:
And here's where my central question is brought up: Aren't you still using words, attitudes, slogans, and first principles from a traditionally Catholic Christian background to gain support for an atheist morality? You cannot escape your past very easily. And given the finely tuned moral sense it's given you, I wouldn't try:angel:

I'm not attempting to escape my past. I'm not trying to overturn the particulars of traditional morality. I am only trying to argue that traditional morality (in the particulars) can still make sense even without God.

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:
Number two really jumps out at me, given that morals are properly referred to as "ought"s.
Here, Kyle seems to wonder (from a relativist perspective, no less!) which is the "right" moral system for him.

Kyle--isn't that nonsensical? I'm being serious, here.

When I wonder from a relativist perspective which moral system is "right" for me, I am wondering which moral system will best facilitate my ultimate goal, which is: "to create a society that I (and my descendants) want to live in".

I don't think that's nonsensical...is it? :huh:

[Captain Ochre]

citizenkyle:


When I wonder from a relativist perspective which moral system is "right" for me, I am wondering which moral system will best facilitate my ultimate goal, which is: "to create a society that I (and my descendants) want to live in".

I don't think that's nonsensical...is it? :huh:

I need to explain? Okay, I'll try: Do you know what type of society your descendents want to live in?


(I'm expecting a "no" answer, I'll admit).

So, you're left with what sort of society *you* want you and your descendents to live in.
That's not any different from asking "What do I want to do" afaics. Mention of the term "morality" in your context seems to be mere ornamentation. No matter what type of society you desire, your standards of behavior are right/wrong accordng to *your* view.

Here's a question for you: Can you decide to do something that you don't want to do?
If you didn't want to do it, then why did you do it? If you "had no choice" then did you decide in the first place?

Utterly subjective moral standards make morality superfluous, leaving personal preference, afaics.

[citizenkyle]

Captain Ochre:
I need to explain? Okay, I'll try: Do you know what type of society your descendents want to live in?

(I'm expecting a "no" answer, I'll admit).

So, you're left with what sort of society *you* want you and your descendents to live in.

Yes, of course. But it's not unreasonable to imagine that my descendants will share my values (which are, after all, very common human values).

Captain Ochre:
Utterly subjective moral standards make morality superfluous, leaving personal preference, afaics.

I disagree. If I were stranded alone on an island, then morality would be superfluous. I could do whatever I wanted without regard to anyone else (setting aside non-human life for the moment). But as soon as you bring multiple humans into the picture (i.e. society) rules which govern action must be developed. Now, one set of rules might prescribe that each individual is to kill, loot, pillage and rape his way indiscriminately to power and wealth. A society a people operating under these rules would not last long. But a society operating under another set of rules, say traditional morality, can be stable and prosperous. So, a standard morality, while ultimately subjective, is still quite necessary for a stable society. Thus, since all (non-sociopathic) humans want to live in such a society, we cannot just do "whatever we want".

[citizenkyle]

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** what about the person of Jesus?

Hmmm. Not sure what you are asking here. Jesus showed compassion for the lower classes, which is admirable, but other than that I don't know how much of his person comes through in the gospels. Care to elaborate?

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** then it seems to me that your system follows quite consistently from your premises.

That's all I can ask. :)

phantaz sunlyk:
i thought you were trying to prove that the idea of an objective morality was intrinsically incoherent or some such. my bad.

Actually, I did argue that, but that was more of a corollary to my paper rather than the main thrust.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** i disagree that it arises from self interest. i think that happiness and the Good are bound to be coincident, and that moral behavior comes from recognition of the good, with an aim for happiness being of indirect importance. the finding is in the seeking if you're on the right path and moving.

If happiness and the Good are coincident, how do you know you are recognizing the Good as opposed to recognizing what will bring you happiness and then calling that the Good?

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** and my claim is that explanatory power is not what is needed in this regard--perception is what is needed. your wife is having a hard day, and you comfort her. why? because you love her and you see and feel her pain.

Actually, I comfort her so she won't start directing her anger at me. :) j/k.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** it seems to me as though Soma would be a live option in your moral system, yes?

Not for me. For someone who does not value clarity or health highly perhaps.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** well, how can you know why a person doesn't steal if they are stealing?

What I meant was that since many people steal, they must not share your view. Or if they do, it is not accompanied by your lack of temptation.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** i don't see how this could follow from enlightened self interest since backwards causation is (probably) logically impossible; i do see how it would follow from a perception at the intuitive level, however.
peace.

My children are an extension of myself both figuratively and--because our shared genes--literally. Thus, their interests are inextricably tied up with my own.

[Captain Ochre]

02-21-2003 @ 05:16 AM
citizenkyle:



Yes, of course. But it's not unreasonable to imagine that my descendants will share my values (which are, after all, very common human values).


Granted; and you're likely to try to impart something akin to your own values on your children (if any) to begin with. It's always going to be based on your preference, though.
A pity you decided not to tackle my playground question. I was interested in your view on that one.

(i had concluded that utterly relative morality was identical to people acting on personal preference, and that the term "morality" was vestigial in that case--paraphrasing myself--to which Kyle replies . . .)


I disagree. If I were stranded alone on an island, then morality would be superfluous. I could do whatever I wanted without regard to anyone else (setting aside non-human life for the moment). But as soon as you bring multiple humans into the picture (i.e. society) rules which govern action must be developed.


I get the impression that you're missing my point. Take 150 robots who have certain behaviors that they observe. Put them in a box, let them go at it for awhile and presto you've got rules for "society". You could use a cell analogy, too. Are the mitochondria moral, since they get along so well with the other organelles?
You don't need the term "morality" to describe the tendencies of people to either operate a cohesive society or not. Who says having a cohesive society is a good thing in the first place? Isn't no society, or a chaotic society just as good, relatively speaking?


Now, one set of rules might prescribe that each individual is to kill, loot, pillage and rape his way indiscriminately to power and wealth. A society a people operating under these rules would not last long.


So what? Is that a bad thing? Maybe the mitochondria go on strike, and cell function is disrupted. Is that a bad thing?


But a society operating under another set of rules, say traditional morality, can be stable and prosperous. So, a standard morality, while ultimately subjective, is still quite necessary for a stable society. Thus, since all (non-sociopathic) humans want to live in such a society, we cannot just do "whatever we want".

As though it's wrong to act in such a way as to prevent the type of society that we allegedly want???
As soon as I act in a manner contrary to what I supposedly want, haven't I conclusively demonstrated that I didn't want whatever it was that badly after all?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey--

Hmmm. Not sure what you are asking here. Jesus showed compassion for the lower classes, which is admirable, but other than that I don't know how much of his person comes through in the gospels. Care to elaborate?

**8** he also showed compassion for the upper classes. of course, the only way we can 'know' the person is via their public behavior--the concrete ex-pression of the soul.
which leads me to Jn. 1:1, 18. Jesus is the Logos and Expression of God, hence he is the revelation of the Father (=, for me, "rock bottom metaphysical fact").
at this point the identification, in John, of Christ's crucifixion with his being glorified; also God Almighty as a 'lamb slain' standing on the throne of glory in Revelation.
thus the cross stands as the bulls-eye in space and time of the translation of Love into human being; the expression of what God (according to us) is. there isn't any 'reason' that can clarify this, for we are dealing with personhood.
this is act of public behavior that i had in mind when speaking of the person of Christ.
out of curiosity, do you think Jesus believed himself to be dying for us?

That's all I can ask. :)

**8** nah, you can go deeper ;)

If happiness and the Good are coincident, how do you know you are recognizing the Good as opposed to recognizing what will bring you happiness and then calling that the Good?

**7** the causal relationship: because happiness is seen as coming from the Good and being entailed by Its being rather than vice versa. to say 'if a, then b' is not the same as saying 'if b, then a'.
or are you denying that ethics is tied into metaphysics?

Actually, I comfort her so she won't start directing her anger at me.

**8** seriously though, what is it that draws a response from you? a kid in 8th grade goes to a dance. he sees a girl who is excluded by the rest of the class wandering on the outskirts of the dance floor with her head down with a sort of dejected and embarassed look on her face. the kid feels a pang of compassion in his heart, and goes over to ask her if she'd like to dance.
what was going on there? genetics? i say it was perception. music and response.

What I meant was that since many people steal, they must not share your view. Or if they do, it is not accompanied by your lack of temptation.

**7** i say they simply choose to ignore it. its like anything that is bad--the first time you do it, you seem aware of the wrongness of it. by the 10th time, the original perception has been dulled.

My children are an extension of myself both figuratively and--because our shared genes--literally. Thus, their interests are inextricably tied up with my own.

**8** being a mind-body dualist, i don't think its that easy. every person is very much their own.
yet i can see how you could say "i simply want my children to have a good world to live in, and by 'good' i mean a world which gives access to the same sources of happiness that i enjoy", or something like that. aside from the fact that it seems to leave the big question unaddressed ('but why do you want that for them?'), it makes all the sense in the world.
peace.

[citizenkyle]

02-21-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Captain Ochre:
A pity you decided not to tackle my playground question. I was interested in your view on that one.

I must have missed that question. Would you mind repeating it?

02-21-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Captain Ochre:
I get the impression that you're missing my point. Take 150 robots who have certain behaviors that they observe. Put them in a box, let them go at it for awhile and presto you've got rules for "society". You could use a cell analogy, too. Are the mitochondria moral, since they get along so well with the other organelles?
You don't need the term "morality" to describe the tendencies of people to either operate a cohesive society or not.

What term do you suggest for the emergence of rules prescribing and proscribing behavior?

02-21-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Captain Ochre:
Who says having a cohesive society is a good thing in the first place? Isn't no society, or a chaotic society just as good, relatively speaking?

In an ultimate cosmic sense, it is irrelevant whether society is stable, chaotic or non-existent. But, if most of the people who make up a given society want stable lives, then cohesiveness is “good” for them—and that is all that matters.

02-21-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Captain Ochre:
As though it's wrong to act in such a way as to prevent the type of society that we allegedly want???
As soon as I act in a manner contrary to what I supposedly want, haven't I conclusively demonstrated that I didn't want whatever it was that badly after all?

Not necessarily. Two reasons:
1) People don’t always understand the consequences of their actions. Many people fail to think broad strokes and see the big picture. This is especially true in our ever more global, interdependent and interconnected world. In other words, people don’t always see an isolated action (say stealing) in the wider context of implicitly creating a society where theft occurs.
2) People realize that as long as most people obey the rules most of the time, a society can tolerate a little cheating at the margins and remain stable. Inevitably, some people will be unable to resist the temptation of cheating the chance to effectively have their cake and eat it too.

[citizenkyle]

02-21-2003 @ 04:44 PM
phantaz sunlyk:
out of curiosity, do you think Jesus believed himself to be dying for us?

I doubt it. But then, I'm a skeptic--doubting is my M.O. :)

02-21-2003 @ 04:44 PM
phantaz sunlyk:
**7** the causal relationship: because happiness is seen as coming from the Good and being entailed by Its being rather than vice versa. to say 'if a, then b' is not the same as saying 'if b, then a'.
or are you denying that ethics is tied into metaphysics?

Worse than that. I deny metaphysics completely. :)

02-21-2003 @ 04:44 PM
phantaz sunlyk:
**8** seriously though, what is it that draws a response from you? a kid in 8th grade goes to a dance. he sees a girl who is excluded by the rest of the class wandering on the outskirts of the dance floor with her head down with a sort of dejected and embarassed look on her face. the kid feels a pang of compassion in his heart, and goes over to ask her if she'd like to dance.
what was going on there? genetics? i say it was perception. music and response.

Let me ask you this: why do so many of the boys *not* respond in that way? If compassion is "good" in some rock-bottom reality sense, then why was the poor girl scorned by so many in the first place?

02-21-2003 @ 04:44 PM
phantaz sunlyk:
yet i can see how you could say "i simply want my children to have a good world to live in, and by 'good' i mean a world which gives access to the same sources of happiness that i enjoy", or something like that. aside from the fact that it seems to leave the big question unaddressed ('but why do you want that for them?'), it makes all the sense in the world.
peace.

I want that for them because I care about them. And I care about them because I was built that way--it's in our nature to love our children (and, to a lesser degree, our friends). You attribute this nature to God, I attribute it to genes.

[flipper]

Worse than that. I deny metaphysics completely. :)


Isn't psychology a sprig from the tree of metaphysics?

[citizenkyle]

02-22-2003 @ 10:22 PM
flipper:
Isn't psychology a sprig from the tree of metaphysics?

I don't know that it has to be. Actually, before I say that, please define "metaphysics".

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** what's shakin'?

I doubt it. But then, I'm a skeptic--doubting is my M.O. :)

**7** i'm an existentialist who is in love. every where i turn i see doxology. i grew up in Montana--must be the mountains ;)
anywho, you can, in some way, see what i'm getting at i hope?

Worse than that. I deny metaphysics completely. :)

**8** i don't understand that statement. by 'metaphysics' i understand a description in words of being.
when i assert that ethics ties into metaphysics, i assert that personhood coincides with being. your position seems to require that personhood is not intrinsic, at all, to being.

Let me ask you this: why do so many of the boys *not* respond in that way?

**7** party spirit and selfishness--instant gratification via the ego, and ignoring their conscience.

If compassion is "good" in some rock-bottom reality sense, then why was the poor girl scorned by so many in the first place?

**8** because of the fall.
the workers in a factory are oppressed and receive unfair wages. this factory produces a nice shirt that is for sale in a popular store in the mall. you buy it--to what degree are you guilty? this is what original sin is all about--we find ourselves in a position wherein we are discoordinated from 'rock-bottom reality', thereby participating in wrongness.
what's your explanation for why the boys treat a human being in a mean spirit? they haven't yet followed their reason through to seeing that (maybe) this might not serve their actual desires (provided they have the forsight to see what this would actually amount to)?

I want that for them because I care about them. And I care about them because I was built that way--it's in our nature to love our children

**7** i love that! a statement wherein metaphysics and ethics are coincident :thumb:
this perception came from the heart--stay there and allow it to be the point of departure for your reason!

You attribute this nature to God, I attribute it to genes.

**8** and i say that such a position necessarily assumes a dichotomy between being and personhood without troubling itself to explain how the latter came from the former. genes are not personal; they don't have feelings, they don't love, they don't fear, they don't hope. an ontological line is crossed when you go from nature to personhood.
as a Christian, personhood is, for me, the rock bottom fact of all reality. ethics coincides with being because personhood is, for me, an act of communion (= the Trinity).
but your system seems unable to explain both the relationship between being and personhood, and that between personhood and ethics.
anywho, i probably won't be able to spend much time at this forum anymore (gotta prepare a lecture and get ready for a visit to a monastery). it was nice talking to you. i hope your open spirit will do you well in your exploration of these matters. and be sure and check out Henry Bugbee's _The Inward Morning_. he wasn't a Christian, but his insights are valuable for both the Christian and the non-Christian.
peace.

[flipper]

CitizenK:


I don't know that it has to be. Actually, before I say that, please define "metaphysics"?

You know, I withdraw my comment which although accurate, wasn't well phrased. Although they both concern themselves with the mind and being, psychology is a soft science and metaphysics is a philosophy. I meant that psychology derived many of its roots from metaphysical philosophies of the mind and the self.

Unlike metaphysics, psychology went to be informed by both medicine and the scientific method.

[Captain Ochre]

Sorry, citizenkyle, about the tardy reply. I have an imperfect system for monitoring my thread involvement :smile:

02-23-2003 @ 04:10 AM
citizenkyle:

I must have missed that question. Would you mind repeating it?


Sure:
Here's a question for you: Can you decide to do something that you don't want to do?
If you didn't want to do it, then why did you do it? If you "had no choice" then did you decide in the first place?

Sorry if my use of the term "playground" left you clueless. I had in mind the mental playground.


What term do you suggest for the emergence of rules prescribing and proscribing behavior?


Collective preference.
When the rules are based on (absolute) right and wrong, then they are moral laws.


In an ultimate cosmic sense, it is irrelevant whether society is stable, chaotic or non-existent. But, if most of the people who make up a given society want stable lives, then cohesiveness is “good” for them—and that is all that matters.


Sorry for the predictable counterexample, but if Iran decides to execute all atheists in their society, then that's okay because most of the people are for it, and it assists the cohesiveness of society.
Agree?


Not necessarily. Two reasons:
1) People don’t always understand the consequences of their actions. Many people fail to think broad strokes and see the big picture. This is especially true in our ever more global, interdependent and interconnected world. In other words, people don’t always see an isolated action (say stealing) in the wider context of implicitly creating a society where theft occurs.


Well, Kyle, an entire society might not understand the broad consequences for their actions. Doesn't that undercut your foundation for morality, above ("all that matters" iirc)?


2) People realize that as long as most people obey the rules most of the time, a society can tolerate a little cheating at the margins and remain stable. Inevitably, some people will be unable to resist the temptation of cheating the chance to effectively have their cake and eat it too.

I don't see how #2 effectively answers either question I posed. You appear to justify my first question with your answer (iow it's okay to cheat occasionally because society is able to endure it in the broad sense). My second question is either vindicated or ignored by the second part of your answer, afaics. My decision to go against society's mores is not only justified by the fact that I wish to do so, but also by the fact that the society will remain stable despite my lawbreaking. Perhaps the message is "everything in moderation--including immorality"? :wink:

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
Sorry, citizenkyle, about the tardy reply. I have an imperfect system for monitoring my thread involvement :smile:

I run a search for "citizenkyle" every time I visit TWeb. That brings up every thread I have posted in.

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
Sorry if my use of the term "playground" left you clueless. I had in mind the mental playground.

I thought that might've been what you meant. I think I answered that at the end of my last post, however, you have expressed dissatisfaction with that answer. I will take up the issue in further depth at the end of thhis post.

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
Collective preference.
When the rules are based on (absolute) right and wrong, then they are moral laws.

Hmmm. Well, if you define morality as "rules based on absolute right and wrong" then any talk of relative morality is nonsense. However, I admit that most people do use the "absolute" definition. So perhaps I should drop the term morality. The problem is what to do if people ask me if I believe in morality or if something is morally wrong. Strictly speaking, I should say "no" but this is somewhat misleading as to my actual position. Unfortunately, I don't always have the time or inclination to sit down and explain my whole system to people. Morality achieves a kind of shorthand efficiency in everyday conversations where "collective preference" just doesn't cut the mustard.

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
Sorry for the predictable counterexample, but if Iran decides to execute all atheists in their society, then that's okay because most of the people are for it, and it assists the cohesiveness of society.
Agree?

It's not that simple. That, to me, is one of the chief problems with moral philosophy. People want nice, clear-cut, black & white answers. But few things are clrear cut in real life. We operate in gray areas, where determining the moral course can often be difficult. Anyway, enough of my rambling. As for your Iran scenario, the moral question is broader than just executing atheists. This implies a broader policy of executions based on belief systems (or broader yet, a policy of capital punishment period). A society that has decided it is moral to execute atheists, also implicitly agrees that:
1) Capital punishment is moral.
2) Beliefs can be grounds for execution.

Now, if most of the people in Iran are in favor of this, I would get the hell out of Iran. :eek: Seriously though, there are further complications yet, because Iran is not an isolated society. It is part of a "global society" and must take into account the views of global citizens as well.

Ok, but let's put all this aside and suppose that I live in a society where most everybody agrees that it is desirable execute people based on belief systems, specifically atheists. Is it good? Well, not for me, but maybe for society at large, if that's really the kind of society those people want. So what I want is pretty much irrelevant. I can try to convince people to come over to my position, but I'd probably be best off just keeping my mouth shut. :smile:

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
Well, Kyle, an entire society might not understand the broad consequences for their actions. Doesn't that undercut your foundation for morality, above ("all that matters" iirc)?

I meant "that's all that matters" in the sense that it is all that is relevant to your question of whether a stable society is better than a chaotic society. Still, it is possible that a society at large may not realize that their actions are actually conducive to chaos. But where else can we look for guidance? (Presuming there is no God, of course). That society will just have to learn from the bitter lessons of experience.

02-27-2003 @ 01:20 PM
Captain Ochre:
I don't see how #2 effectively answers either question I posed. You appear to justify my first question with your answer (iow it's okay to cheat occasionally because society is able to endure it in the broad sense).

Your question was: "As soon as I act in a manner contrary to what I supposedly want, haven't I conclusively demonstrated that I didn't want whatever it was that badly after all?"

#2 answers this by demonstrating that people can both want a generally stable society, and yet want to cheat for themselves. If everyone did this, however, society would not be stable. Which is why we develop laws and a punitive system--to keep cheating confined to the margins.

[Epoetker]

I meant "that's all that matters" in the sense that it is all that is relevant to your question of whether a stable society is better than a chaotic society. Still, it is possible that a society at large may not realize that their actions are actually conducive to chaos. But where else can we look for guidance? (Presuming there is no God, of course). That society will just have to learn from the bitter lessons of experience.

Given that Iran's wide student-led demonstrations only exist because they have the picture of a better society in the secular government and civil society of the United States (they don't tend to shout USA! USA! USA! at those rallies because we're just one among many political theories they like) what happens if the world goes Orwellian on us? Societies like that are quite good at ensuring stability without democracy, and one of the reasons we're off to Iraq right now is that we recognize that a stable political arrangement like Saddam's will lead inexorably to a powerful WMD-wielding bigshot in the region bent on bringing his form of 'stability' to the whole world. But I'd wager that the desire to maintain freedom at the cost of instability is almost completely a result of a somewhat religious impulse in those brought up in democratic societies. 1984 ceased to scare me insofar as I couldn't see how they could break down this religious impulse toward freedom in any but the secular person. (Indeed, it was broken by being identified as merely a religious impulse, unconnected to reality.) At least Orwell never detailed the process, and I seem to recall reading in one of Paul Johnson's history books that a few other authors of the time noted that as well. I have no doubt that you see the benefits of the arrangement, but an atheist morality will immediately have to contend with the morality of convenience enacted by variously oppressive (and our definition of "oppressive" needs reworking too) governments around the world. Many are quite old, have survived numerous technological revolutions, and the 'bitter lessons of experience' seem to have been kept untaught until the past couple hundred years or so, when contact with troublesome foreign democracies, many of them explicitly Christian in outlook, caused their population to revolt.

In other words, can any explicitly atheist morality muster the power and authority to resist the brutal death of political repression or the softer, slower death of "this opinion is but one in a range of many other, more workable opinions..." when the Committee on Public Morality (now THERE'S an organization most secular liberals would LOVE to take potshots at, assuming they were still free enough to do so...) reviews the efficacy of the next batch of proposals for keeping the scoiety stable? If you think we web-based debators can be nastily pedantic objectors to any proposal which might be self-evidently beneficial, you should see how someone trained in the job their whole life might break one down. :uhoh:

[citizenkyle]

02-28-2003 @ 12:35 AM
Epoetker:
Given that Iran's wide student-led demonstrations only exist because they have the picture of a better society in the secular government and civil society of the United States (they don't tend to shout USA! USA! USA! at those rallies because we're just one among many political theories they like) what happens if the world goes Orwellian on us? Societies like that are quite good at ensuring stability without democracy, and one of the reasons we're off to Iraq right now is that we recognize that a stable political arrangement like Saddam's will lead inexorably to a powerful WMD-wielding bigshot in the region bent on bringing his form of 'stability' to the whole world. But I'd wager that the desire to maintain freedom at the cost of instability is almost completely a result of a somewhat religious impulse in those brought up in democratic societies. 1984 ceased to scare me insofar as I couldn't see how they could break down this religious impulse toward freedom in any but the secular person. (Indeed, it was broken by being identified as merely a religious impulse, unconnected to reality.) At least Orwell never detailed the process, and I seem to recall reading in one of Paul Johnson's history books that a few other authors of the time noted that as well. I have no doubt that you see the benefits of the arrangement, but an atheist morality will immediately have to contend with the morality of convenience enacted by variously oppressive (and our definition of "oppressive" needs reworking too) governments around the world. Many are quite old, have survived numerous technological revolutions, and the 'bitter lessons of experience' seem to have been kept untaught until the past couple hundred years or so, when contact with troublesome foreign democracies, many of them explicitly Christian in outlook, caused their population to revolt.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on religion as a factor in determining whether societies are oppressive or not. I would argue that religion has very little to do with this. Religion is a tool that can be used to justify either oppression or liberty depending on how it is wielded. The bottom line is that most every society in history would strike those of us with a modern, first-world perspective as oppressive. Personal freedom was not a value of traditional societies (including Christian ones). The trends in decentralization of power (literacy, mechanization, mass media) in the last few hundred years have been the driving forces behind our move towards personal freedom. The "troublesome foreign democracies" you mention were at the forefront of these trends. That they also happened to be predominantly Christian was an accident of history.

[Captain Ochre]

02-27-2003 @ 10:49 PM
citizenkyle:

It's not that simple. That, to me, is one of the chief problems with moral philosophy. People want nice, clear-cut, black & white answers. But few things are clrear cut in real life. We operate in gray areas, where determining the moral course can often be difficult.


Gray areas are penguin dust. It's still black and white if you look at it closely enough.


Anyway, enough of my rambling. As for your Iran scenario, the moral question is broader than just executing atheists. This implies a broader policy of executions based on belief systems (or broader yet, a policy of capital punishment period). A society that has decided it is moral to execute atheists, also implicitly agrees that:
1) Capital punishment is moral.
2) Beliefs can be grounds for execution.

Now, if most of the people in Iran are in favor of this, I would get the hell out of Iran. :eek: Seriously though, there are further complications yet, because Iran is not an isolated society. It is part of a "global society" and must take into account the views of global citizens as well.


Are nations obligated to take into account only those global (or more?--will the Mars colony be irrelevant morally?) opinions of which they are aware, or are opinions of which we are unaware relevant as well (albeit difficult to account for in practice)?
Do you understand how the view you suggest looks suspiciously like appeal to the people?


Ok, but let's put all this aside and suppose that I live in a society where most everybody agrees that it is desirable execute people based on belief systems, specifically atheists. Is it good? Well, not for me, but maybe for society at large, if that's really the kind of society those people want. So what I want is pretty much irrelevant. I can try to convince people to come over to my position, but I'd probably be best off just keeping my mouth shut. :smile:


Thanks for dealing with the issue head-on (totally non-sarcastic).


I meant "that's all that matters" in the sense that it is all that is relevant to your question of whether a stable society is better than a chaotic society. Still, it is possible that a society at large may not realize that their actions are actually conducive to chaos. But where else can we look for guidance? (Presuming there is no God, of course). That society will just have to learn from the bitter lessons of experience.


Or not. :wink:


Your question was: "As soon as I act in a manner contrary to what I supposedly want, haven't I conclusively demonstrated that I didn't want whatever it was that badly after all?"

#2 answers this by demonstrating that people can both want a generally stable society, and yet want to cheat for themselves.


Is that an answer or a concession of the point? I didn't suggest that the cheater abandons the larger goal; I had in mind that the larger goal slipped down a few notches on the priority scale. If it stays at the top, no cheating should be expected, right?



If everyone did this, however, society would not be stable.


Exactly, which is why you should cheat carefully and well while exposing the cheating of others. :cheers:


Which is why we develop laws and a punitive system--to keep cheating confined to the margins.

And then we developed lawyers to maintain cheating as a privilege for the minority?
:smile:

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]02-28-2003 @ 07:35 AM
Epoetker:
....ensuring stability without democracy,

Incorrect. All authoritarian states are inherently unstable, because the leadership has no legitimacy with the people. The oppression is necessary they are unstable. That is why authoritarian governments tend to have short lives, no more than a couple of generations.

and one of the reasons we're off to Iraq right now is that we recognize that a stable political arrangement like Saddam's will lead inexorably to a powerful WMD-wielding bigshot in the region bent on bringing his form of 'stability' to the whole world.

You mean like the way the USA is behaving right now?

Hussein's government is totally unstable -- maintained only by 24/7 application of political terror. It is highly unlikely that he could set up a stable government that would last several generations. One of the fundamental paradoxes of strong leaders is that they leave chaos in their wake; in order to maintain their power, they were forced to get rid of competent rivals. That is why authoritarianism tends to be one-generation when founded on a single person. Ideologically-based authoritarianisms tend to last much longer -- look how well the Saudis have done with a mix of monarchism and Wahabi Islam.

In any case there are several governments in the region with WMDs -- Pakistan and Israel have nukes, for example. Israel is arguably a democracy, Pakistan is clearly not. Further, it is well known that the Pakistani Intelligence services, Al Qaeda and the Taliban all worked together. So I don't understand why your rather bizarre political theory hasn't resulted in an invasion of Pakistan rather than Iraq....or could it be that you are completely wrong?

But I'd wager that the desire to maintain freedom at the cost of instability is almost completely a result of a somewhat religious impulse in those brought up in democratic societies. 1984 ceased to scare me insofar as I couldn't see how they could break down this religious impulse toward freedom in any but the secular person.

:rofl: Please. You're standing history on its head! To give the most outstanding example, Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state with mandatory school prayer and Christianity supreme among the local population. Christians stood on all sides of the Hitler issue, but the fact is that Nazism was successful, even popular, in an almost totally believing nation, and Christians heartily cooperated with the Nazis in their death camp programs (there was even a camp run by a cleric, and of course, a Catholic priest was dictator of Slovakia.) In fact, all of the authoritarian monarchies, from the later Roman Empire on, were Christian in nature and authoritarian in political orientation. Not until secularism became widespread did democracy become widespread.

Many are quite old, have survived numerous technological revolutions, and the 'bitter lessons of experience' seem to have been kept untaught until the past couple hundred years or so, when contact with troublesome foreign democracies, many of them explicitly Christian in outlook, caused their population to revolt.

:rofl: Quite the other way around. It was Christian Europe's contact with the world that taught it to break free of the habits of thought (Christianity among them) that had made it the poorest and least developed part of the Earth until the beginning of the 18th century. For example, European elites were quite impressed by China, which was wealthier and better run than any European state, but without the Christian deity. You need to read one of the standard reference works, like [i]Asia in the Making of Europe, or see The Shorter Science and Civilization in China, or maybe one of Arnold Pacey's works.

Vorkosigan

[citizenkyle]

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
Captain Ochre:
Are nations obligated to take into account only those global (or more?--will the Mars colony be irrelevant morally?) opinions of which they are aware, or are opinions of which we are unaware relevant as well (albeit difficult to account for in practice)?
Do you understand how the view you suggest looks suspiciously like appeal to the people?

It looks suspiciously like an appeal to the people because that's, more or less, what it is. Without a God to appeal to, democracy becomes the next best option. We can't entrust a single human (or an oligarchy) with the power to decided right and wrong--at least not without opening the door to rampant abuse.

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
Captain Ochre:
Thanks for dealing with the issue head-on (totally non-sarcastic).

Your welcome. :smile: My system is not so much interested in answering the question "what is moral?", but rather answering the question, "why does morality exist and how does it develop?". By understanding the answer to the second question, I can better act as an agent to develop the morality I want in the world.

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
Captain Ochre:
Exactly, which is why you should cheat carefully and well while exposing the cheating of others. :cheers:

That is the strategy that some will inevitably pursue. Of course, it's a more risky strategy and requires more effort than simply obeying the rules. And as long as that is the case, cheating can be effectively confined to the margins.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:48 PM
Vorkosigan:

02-28-2003 @ 07:35 AM
Epoetker:
....ensuring stability without democracy,


Incorrect. All authoritarian states are inherently unstable, because the leadership has no legitimacy with the people.


You appear to be begging the question, above.
Why doesn't an authoritarian state have no legitimacy with the people? Many in Germany regarded Hitler as a special, almost messianic figure. Are messianic figures incapable of having legitimacy with the people? How do you figure?


The oppression is necessary [i they are unstable. That is why authoritarian governments tend to have short lives, no more than a couple of generations.


I'll leave you to scrounge up your citation in support of the above claim.


[b]and one of the reasons we're off to Iraq right now is that we recognize that a stable political arrangement like Saddam's will lead inexorably to a powerful WMD-wielding bigshot in the region bent on bringing his form of 'stability' to the whole world.

You mean like the way the USA is behaving right now?


Exactly; one for evil and one for good. Are you a moral relativist or what? :smile:


Hussein's government is totally unstable -- maintained only by 24/7 application of political terror.


Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people aren't happy and content and unwilling to have a regime change? Do check in on some of our other Iraq threads. :wink:


In any case there are several governments in the region with WMDs -- Pakistan and Israel have nukes, for example. Israel is arguably a democracy, Pakistan is clearly not. Further, it is well known that the Pakistani Intelligence services, Al Qaeda and the Taliban all worked together. So I don't understand why your rather bizarre political theory hasn't resulted in an invasion of Pakistan rather than Iraq....or could it be that you are completely wrong?


Pakistan cooperated with the US during the campaign against the Taliban and al Qaida, and has participated in the arrest of key al Qaida operatives. There is no comparison. If the goverment is cooperating in the campaign against terrorism, then there is not need to act against that government.


But I'd wager that the desire to maintain freedom at the cost of instability is almost completely a result of a somewhat religious impulse in those brought up in democratic societies. 1984 ceased to scare me insofar as I couldn't see how they could break down this religious impulse toward freedom in any but the secular person.

:rofl: Please. You're standing history on its head! To give the most outstanding example, Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state with mandatory school prayer and Christianity supreme among the local population.


Mandatory school prayer? Citation?
The Nazis maintained their power pretty much as does Saddam Hussein: Via persecution of those who disagreed.


Christians stood on all sides of the Hitler issue, but the fact is that Nazism was successful, even popular, in an almost totally believing nation, and Christians heartily cooperated with the Nazis in their death camp programs (there was even a camp run by a cleric, and of course, a Catholic priest was dictator of Slovakia.)


Granted, many Christians (along with many "Christians") went along with the Nazi program. OTOH, predominantly Christian nations opposed the Nazis. The biggest example of a purely secular state (the USSR) had no beef with the Nazis until the Nazis attacked them.
http://www.assumption.edu/dept/history/HI14Net/Hitler_Stalin_pact.html


In fact, all of the authoritarian monarchies, from the later Roman Empire on, were Christian in nature and authoritarian in political orientation. Not until secularism became widespread did democracy become widespread.


When has secularism ever been widespread?
The British government has been continuous longer than that of the US, and maintains both an element of monarchy and a big, fat element of non-secularism (see Church of England).
"Secular" government is a new idea, and it isn't the same as secularist government, however avidly skeptics like to try to blur the line.


It was Christian Europe's contact with the world that taught it to break free of the habits of thought (Christianity among them) that had made it the poorest and least developed part of the Earth until the beginning of the 18th century.


Should we consider that a wave of your hand versus the contributions of the Reformation (Protestant work ethic and the germination of Western representative government)?