I have been known, now and again, to fret over the moral condition of our contemporary world. On such occasions, it warms my heart to think of the brave warriors of culture who are quick to defend precious institutions against the relativising onslaughts of modernity. Two recent cases in point:
- Sixty-six Senators (out of a hundred, for you public-high-school graduates like myself) voted to amend the Constitution to stop our Flag from being burned! Now, it’s true that sixty-seven (“more than two-thirds,” ibid.) would have been required to actually scoot the proposed amendment along its way, but still it’s comforting to know that such a robust majority wants to do the right thing. After all, flag burning is up 33% this year! The amendment was a straightforward prohibition against “the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Desecration, of course, means “to violate the sacredness of,” and sacred means “dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity” or “worthy of religious veneration,” which is a status I didn’t even know belonged to Old Glory. Always learning something new, I guess.
- One Pope (that’s all there is) came out firmly against guitars in church! Because Jesus (or perhaps it is the Holy Spirit, I’m a little vague on the details) approves of chanting and organ music, but finds string instruments to be annoyingly twangy. This bold gesture fits in well with Benedict XVI’s shrewd plan to revitalize Christianity in affluent, secular cultures, where guitar music has traditionally met great resistance.
I’m not sure which of these stirring tales brings greater joy to my bitter, cynical soul. But it’s good to know that, now that we’ve successfully dealt with poverty, disease, and war, the important battles over appropriate behavior are being fought with clarity and vigor.
I reminded of what happens when you argue with creationists about evolution. They say, “So where are the transitional fossils?” and you supply ’em with a list and they come back with “So where are the transitional fossils?”
To quote myself: “Murdering people is a bad idea because a world in which people murder freely would be a lousy place to live. Even if an individual absolutely, positively knows that he can get away with murder, he would diminish yourself by abusing the dignity of a being like himself—there is an element of suicide in murder. Sane and healthy individuals feel revulsion at the thought of “murder most foul,” but they also have reasons to reject such behavior that transcend emotions.”
Those sorts of arguments are all I’ve got. They seem like enough to me, but if they aren’t good enough for you, have a nice day.
Thanks Jim. Sorry, I completely missed that quote from higher up in the thread. That’s a perfectly good reason, and I agree with you completely.
“I reminded of what happens when you argue with creationists about evolution. They say, “So where are the transitional fossils?” and you supply ’em with a list and they come back with “So where are the transitional fossils?””
I have trouble believing that. Perhaps you are exaggerating. I think the better explanation is that some creationists don’t know everything about the fossil record or what every other creationist knows and what every evolutionist knows. Thus, they ask where the transitional fossils are even though other creationists, at other times, asked the same question and received an answer. Isn’t that a better explanation?
“Even if an individual absolutely, positively knows that he can get away with murder, he would diminish yourself by abusing the dignity of a being like himself—there is an element of suicide in murder.”
So humans have dignity, eh? Where does this diginity come from? What exactly does it mean to have dignity?
Don’t forget comment number 48. 🙂 Talk to you later, Jim.
On a Thursday morning, I’m not sure I’m up to stating a total philosophy of man and nature in three paragraphs or less. In order to be a moral individual, one does not need to have a worked-out theory of ethcs, let alone a general metaphysics about the ontological status of the soul or the freedom of the will. I thought the issue had once been whether a nonbeliever can be moral, a much easier question. After all, if I turn out to be wrong in my speculations about the nature of things, I’m not going to be especially surprised; but I’d be very surprised to find out that it was a good thing to kill people.
It seems to me that my existence as a rational human being is tied up with my membership in a community of other rational beings. Because the others are like me in a crucial way, I can’t treat them as mere objects or tools without implicitly degrading myself. This way of looking at things is often associated with Kant’s philosophy, but almost all reflection on right and wrong involves something similar. I don’t think it is one of those edifying ideas it would be pretty to believe. I figure it’s simply right.
Jim,
You’re a perfect example of a point that I’ve made here before. Atheists raised in a Christian culture are so steeped in the associated customs and attitudes that they aren’t even aware that they’ve absorbed them. Do you seriously believe that a Greek aristocrat of the 8th century B.C., a Germanic tribesman of the 3rd century A.D., or a Palestinian Muslim of the 21st century felt or feel “diminished” when he “abuses the dignity of a being like himself” when he murders? These are all members of cultures in which murder was a means of preserving one’s honor. Not committing murder in certain circumstances would have been and still is regarded as the height of immorality. There was and is no self diminishing element to it whatsoever.
Are you kidding me? So anyone who murders then sleeps like a baby is insane? What you really mean to say here is that atheistic liberals, who have internalized the Christian taboo against murder as a consequence of growing up in a Christian society, feel revulsion at the thought of murder.
Please note:
1. It’s natural for humans (and certain other species) to kill their own kind (murder).
2. A largely successful means of restraining murderous and other savage human passions (sufficiently well to permit the rise of civilizations) has been the inculcation of religious beliefs and customs from birth.
3. In the absence of the reinforcing effect of a society’s religion, the customs restraining human impulses will weaken with each successive generation.
4. There is no secular system of beliefs known to restrain savage human impulses to the degree required to sustain civilization.
5. The currently lack of such secular system of belief does not preclude the possibility of its being developed in the future.
There’s no point in lying to ourselves. It’s perfectly okay to be an atheist and acknowledge that 1) our society can’t survive on the secular beliefs currently extant, and 2) it only seems that it can survive on them because we’re coasting on Christian traditions.
“In order to be a moral individual, one does not need to have a worked-out theory of ethcs, let alone a general metaphysics about the ontological status of the soul or the freedom of the will. I thought the issue had once been whether a nonbeliever can be moral, a much easier question.”
I don’t think that was the issue. Of course a nonbeliever can be a moral individual and one does not need to have a worked-out theory of ethics to be moral. I think the issue is whether or not an absolute morality (which both of us knows exists) is possible if God (i.e. some “higher” or transcendant being) doesn’t exist, or if humans are purely material beings (just a collection of atoms, nothing more, nothing less). If there is no other will than the will of human beings, is there such a thing as an absolute morality independent of any human being?
“It seems to me that my existence as a rational human being is tied up with my membership in a community of other rational beings. Because the others are like me in a crucial way, I can’t treat them as mere objects or tools without implicitly degrading myself.”
So I shouldn’t, for example, kill anyone, because of what this act will do to me and my view of myself? Assuming we’re purely material, then doesn’t it follow that other humans, myself included, are mere objects?
Or maybe we aren’t completely material. Perhaps we do have free will, and capable of self-determination. If so, and if there is no higher will than the will of man, then why can’t I choose to use other people for my own purposes if I want to?
We don’t have to wonder whether barbarian Greeks or Vikings thought that murder was wrong. They certainly did–haven’t you guys ever read Homer or the Sagas? Of course, you can muddy the issue by acting as if any act of killing counts as murder. It doesn’t. As a lawyer or a general. There certainly are differences between the legal and moral rules of one people and another, but the notion of man-beasts running wild is an ahistorical idea only suitable for comic books. Anyhow, for slaughter on a mass scale, you need to get organized; and that requires religions or ideologies.
It’s pretty odd to claim that Christianity is the source of humane morality since many of the moral ideals picked up by that religion have their origin in other religions and in secular philosophy. And of course the evidence that irrational faith promotes social peace is not very good: highly secular West Europe is far less violent than Christ-ridden America. I expect that a serious examination of the evidence would conclude that under some circumstances, revealed religions make the best of a bad situation such as the decline and fall of Rome while at other times they make things very much work.
The question in the last post (“…if there is no higher will than the will of man, then why can’t I choose to use other people for my own purposes if I want to?”) is extremely peculiar. Of course I can chose to use other people for my own purposes. I can always chose to do wrong. For that matter, if there is a higher will than the will of man, I can still chose to do wrong. Do you really think there is an argument that is guaranteed to turn everybody into saints?
Jim, my friend, you are diligent to be keeping up with this thread. Looking over what has been said, I would regret if I didn’t express my heartfelt affirmation of the good moral beliefs you have been so selflessly defending. I appreciate how strange it might seem to be challenged on “Thou shalt not murder” by advocates of theism! Thank you for hanging in there against our attacks on morality 🙂
From #53:
“On a Thursday morning, I’m not sure I’m up to stating a total philosophy of man and nature in three paragraphs or less.”
No doubt. By lunch time on Tuesday my omniscience is completely shot for the week 🙂
“In order to be a moral individual, one does not need to have a worked-out theory of ethics, let alone a general metaphysics about the ontological status of the soul or the freedom of the will.”
Fully agreed, at least for most individuals, if not for societies.
“After all, if I turn out to be wrong in my speculations about the nature of things, I’m not going to be especially surprised; but I’d be very surprised to find out that it was a good thing to kill people.”
I know the feeling.
“It seems to me that my existence as a rational human being is tied up with my membership in a community of other rational beings. Because the others are like me in a crucial way, I can’t treat them as mere objects or tools without implicitly degrading myself. This way of looking at things is often associated with Kant’s philosophy, but almost all reflection on right and wrong involves something similar. I don’t think it is one of those edifying ideas it would be pretty to believe. I figure it’s simply right.”
That is beautifully said. One would have to be highly motivated, I think, to disagree with you here.
From #49:
“You might try asking yourself the metaquestion. What would I count as an answer to the question, “Why should I act well?” If you’re not going to accept the homely sorts of reasons that I’ve suggested, just what kind of answers would suit you?”
Thanks for the invitation. Since it’s now all of Friday morning, I will make just a sketch of what I consider the foundation of Christian ethics, since that is what I try hardest to understand and feel most able to speak for.
I have come to believe that:
God exists and is completely holy and good in nature. God means for us to exist and brings about our existence and means for us to know God and enjoy God in this life and here”after”. Every one of us has been estranged from God, which means that we are not completely holy or good. To the extent that we are not holy, God’s nature is in itself a great danger to us and we are “dead in our transgressions,” to use the metaphorical language of the apostle. Rather than changing God’s nature, God somehow condescends to us and makes us holy. In this condescension is shown the grace of God, and it is what the Bible, as a whole, is about. We have not done anything to deserve this grace; but as we have received it, we owe it to one another, because God says so.
That last statement is what I am offering as a summary of Christian ethics. It is supported by a framework of other beliefs which is by no means self-proving or even without very mysterious and problematic points. But that’s life, I think: there is no getting around the profound mystery of the entire background on which our experience of life takes shape, no matter how that background is construed. What I have tried to challenge is the assumption that a universe without a transcending moral author can be the background for “Thou shalt not murder” and all our other cherished moral dogmas.
You appreciate that I’m not very interested in moral dogmas, cherished or otherwise.
To a nonbeliever, the familiar evangelical message is curiously irrelevant to the philosophical question of how one goes about justifying or even identifying moral rules. Are you realy claiming that one needs some sort of theological worldview to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong or are you suggesting something quite different, namely that one needs grace in order to live up to a law that can be discovered independently of revelation or even illumination? If the later, at least you don’t have to go through seven kinds of contortions to pretend that there is something particularly mysterious about routine moral knowledge.
Of course, I’ve got no business giving out theological advice. That would be like a catholic priest conducting a how-to sex seminar. Either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he shouldn’t know what he’s talking about. On the other hand, I read so much Luther and Calvin in my youth, I guess I can fake it pretty well.
“The question in the last post (“…if there is no higher will than the will of man, then why can’t I choose to use other people for my own purposes if I want to?”) is extremely peculiar. Of course I can chose to use other people for my own purposes. I can always chose to do wrong. For that matter, if there is a higher will than the will of man, I can still chose to do wrong.”
Of course, I can always choose to do wrong, but what I meant was that if there is no higher will than the will of man, then why can’t my will supply the definition of what is right and what is wrong? Why can’t I be justified in choosing to use other people for my own purposes if I want to?
“Do you really think there is an argument that is guaranteed to turn everybody into saints?”
Nope.
It’s one thing to claim that you like or approve of something and another to claim that it is morally good. The semantics of ordinary language implies that the statement “x is good” has more going for it than “I like it!” In particular, it implies that you should approve of x also. If what you mean is really “I like it!” that’s what you should have said in the first place.
Now maybe there is, as you imply, no non-arbitrary basis for moral judgment; but if there isn’t such a standard, my will can’t supply one. Neither, by the way, can God, whose actions are necessarly amoral on this irrationalist view of things. The mere “Thou shalt” is a tyrant’s whim, which is why so many theologians have insisted that even for God there is a rational standard of right and wrong independent of the divine will–which is to say, he wills the Law because it’s right. It isn’t right because he wills it. I know that various reformers denied this thesis, Luther in particular. So much the worse for the reformers.
“Now maybe there is, as you imply, no non-arbitrary basis for moral judgment; but if there isn’t such a standard, my will can’t supply one.”
Correct. If there is no standard, my will can’t supply one, because no standard exists. Therefore, you can’t claim that my actions are “right” or “wrong” because no standard exists according to which an action may be judged as being right and wrong. Therefore, if a country decides to legalize something which, according to us, is a violation of human rights, nothing wrong is actually happening.
It is your claim that there is no standard of right and wrong except the arbitrary will of individuals or gods. That’s not my opinion. I was arguing from your premises, not my own. As endlessly stated above, I think that there are excellent reasons for moral rules that don’t involve elaborate and improbable metaphysical or theological assumptions.
I really do think that a lot of this has to do with whether you think of morality from the point of view of a child or from the point of view of a responsible adult. For lots of folks, apparently, it is simply unthinkable that morality doesn’t require some authority figure. They’re looking around for a cosmic Daddy they can please with good behavior. Well, when I was a child, I spoke as a child.