Self-Regulating Morality
Many (if not most) theists claim that morality is impossible without god. They say that a book of rules is the only way to know the right way to behave. I firmly disagree.
Let me start off by reminding you that I am a moral relativist. As such, I do not believe in absolute right and wrong. Good and evil are constructs of religion, and while they make for great propaganda, they are empty concepts. At best, they are relative to one’s interests and point of view. However, it is observably true that some behaviors and actions are beneficial or harmful on a larger scale than the individual. There are some things which society must deem “wrong,” because these behaviors usually adversely affect others. The selfish version of the golden rule comes into play. You can’t be allowed to do unto others, or they’ll damn well do unto you. The most obvious example is, of course, murder. I accept that I can’t kill people I would like to kill (and there are some), because I don’t want to be the victim of those who would like to kill me (and there are some).
For this type of blatant “sin,” it’s easy to see how the societal rules that we call morality arise without an invisible father figure holding us over a flaming pit. However, what about the more subtle sins? Let’s take pride as an example. It’s one of the seven biggies, after all. How might the societal reproach of such a nebulous thing as pride be self-regulating? Those of you who have been following the Olympics saw an example last night.
American Lindsey Jacobellis, snowboardcross world champion, was well in the lead in last night’s final race. The gold medal might as well have been around her neck. She looked back at one point and saw that there was no one in sight. On the next to last jump, she executed a celebratory “method air,” and failed to land it. She crashed into the snow and tumbled end over end as the Swiss snowboarder, Tanja Frieden, passed her. Lindsey now has a silver medal and herself to blame. Instead of a national hero, she is a national disappointment and was forced to suffer a fate worse than hell… the scorn of Bob Costas on national TV. This is a “moral” lesson, if you choose to frame the world with that sort of term, that Lindsey will carry for the rest of her life, and a great many TV viewers around the world have also benefited from this cautionary tale.
The point of this little exercise is to illustrate the fact that societies accumulate their unwritten rules through experience and observation. Most things that are deemed “wrong,” are so categorized because they have been harmful to the individual or the group in the past. Even so immaterial a thing as pride is rejected based on evidence. A god is unnecessary to teach that lesson and all the others. Besides, where does a being who goes around calling himself the lord almighty and ruler of heaven and earth get off teaching us about pride?
~I AM~
February 18th, 2006 at at 11:46 am
Yes, that’s why I don’t watch the Olympics—too many sinners.
February 18th, 2006 at at 3:43 pm
I just wanted to say that I agree with you. They say great minds think alike, well, we Gnostic Atheists do. Unfortunatly, they don’t say that great minds are rare, because most people don’t wanna hear that. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would look at my blog, you might like it.
February 18th, 2006 at at 3:56 pm
Good article. My favorite part? This:
“Besides, where does a being who goes around calling himself the lord almighty and ruler of heaven and earth get off teaching us about pride?”
Keep up the fine work!!
February 18th, 2006 at at 4:50 pm
For a mathematical model of your argument, see Game Theory and the Social Contract
February 18th, 2006 at at 10:45 pm
Does being a moral relativist basically mean that what is right or wrong depends on context and perspective? On a related note, is it possible for an atheist or agnostic to be a moral absolutist? If so, how?
February 18th, 2006 at at 10:51 pm
Well, yes, that and the amount of money involved…
February 19th, 2006 at at 2:20 am
On a related note, is it possible for an atheist or agnostic to be a moral absolutist?
Sure. All you have to do is say “Morality is absolute.” Done and finished.
February 19th, 2006 at at 11:45 am
In a recent post over at Debunking Christianity, I attempted to explain how a moral relativist can make objective moral judgments without claiming that those judgments are universal.
That way, one can avoid moral nihilism–i.e. the inability to make any kind of moral judgment at all.
I think the distinction is important because, otherwise, I AM’s God is a Dick series would be meaningless. If one cannot make objective moral judgments then being morally outraged by a god’s actions is pointless.
Anyway, check here if you want to see the context of what I wrote:
***
But are all relative judgments invalid?
Consider motion. Imagine sitting next to me in a bar when I suddenly begin screaming, “My Guiness is moving! Sweet Lola, save me, my Guiness is moving!” You look at my glass, however, and say, “Man, atheism is really rat poison to the intellect! Your Guiness isn’t moving; it’s perfectly still.”
Is it both possible that my Guiness is moving and that my Guiness is not moving? Of course it is!
I could respond to your skepticism, “Isn’t this continent drifting, the earth rotating and revolving, our solar system spinning in a pinwheel galaxy, and our galaxy speeding away from others in the universe? How can you say my Guiness isn’t moving?!”
At the same time, you could have said, “Look EB, there is a spot on the bar next to your glass and we can tell by this ruler that your glass is neither moving towards that spot nor away from it. Your glass is stationary.”
Both contradictory statements are correct, but are relative to specific spatio-temporal frameworks. From certain spatio-temporal frameworks, my Guiness is stationary; from others, it is moving. The “fact” of the motion of my Guiness is relative to the spatio-temporal framework that is adopted. There is no one, “true” spatio-temporal framework that truly determines whether something is “really” moving or not, there are only different frameworks from which to judge.
But though my Guiness’ motion is relative, it is still “objective.” You would certainly admit the validity of my statement that my Guiness is moving from any of the other spatio-temporal frameworks that I mentioned as justification. I would certainly admit the validity of your statement from the spatio-temporal framework that you mention. Both statements are correct, but are so relative to specific spatio-temporal frameworks.
Now, what if the same could be said of moral judgments? What if I could say objectively that it is morally wrong of P to D (I’m stealing all of this from Princeton’s Gilbert Harman if you are wondering), but had to qualify my statement that it was morally wrong according to a specific moral framework? My judgment would be objective, but not universal.
If morality is not universal, though, must I accept everyone’s moral judgments as equally valid? Of course not. For one thing, it is certainly possible that someone makes a moral judgment that does not fit the moral framework they use to justify it [Just like it would be possible for someone to say that something is stationary from a framework in which that judgment is inconsistent].
Secondly, acknowledging that a belief may be justified by reference to another moral framework does not mean that I have to abandon my own moral framework. For example, I believe that it is morally wrong to rape someone. If I were to happen upon a man trying to rape a woman, my moral framework demands that I do whatever action is permissible according to that framework to prevent that action from taking place. I may acknowledge that the action is permissible according to the rapist’s moral framework, but that does not mean that I must ignore what is demanded by my own moral framework.
Moral relativism, then, does not necessarily lead to moral nihilism.
Anyone familiar with Foucault’s work on power structures will know that, if he is correct, social ideas and morality are shaped by power. There is nothing called “madness” out in the world. One cannot catch “madness” in a bucket and paint it pink. It is an idea that must be defined. Originally, the church and the family were the primary power structures that made this definition. The church needed a way to distinguish between God’s directions to his people through the Holy Spirit and the babblings of a madman. People that had certain heretical “visions” and “promptings” from God were considered “mad.” Now, it is the physicians who define these kind of terms. Whatever the age, though, power is the driver behind these definitions.
In the case of morality, then, power will be the stabilizing (or destabilizing) force behind societal morality. Obviously, that does not mean that one must accept society’s morality (both the Christians here and myself reject our current society’s morality, but for drastically different reasons). For example, though most of current, American society opposes same-sex marriage, I adamantly support it. I do not have to accept the majority opinion even if I acknowledge that that opinion is justified by reference to a certain moral framework. I can exert my power (however limited it is) to try to change societal opinion. I can also point out that denying homosexual couples marriage is inconsistent with other, primary societal values like equal treatment under the law.
Just like one can make objective statements about motion even though the statements are relative to spatio-temporal frameworks, so I can make objective statements about morality that are relative to specific moral frameworks. So, contrary to Bahnsen’s argument, I can be outraged by the Holocaust and not have a universal morality to do so. Does someone else have to agree with my outrage? Certainly not, but I will exert every power available to me via my moral framework (which excludes violence) to make others see things my way. Morality, like every idea (according to Foucault) is a power struggle.
February 19th, 2006 at at 7:06 pm
I was watching Lindsay Jacobellis lose her gold… I don’t think I’d have had a problem with her moment of idiocy if not for the fact that it was patently obvious she was showing off, certain she had it - but when asked, she tried to act like it wasn’t to show off.
Even the guy doing commentary said that in her shoes, he’d have likely done it, too. It’s part of the culture of snowboarding. Had she just said, yup, I tried to show off and lost myself the gold , I’d be satisfied.
At least Bob Costas was able to get her to stop trying to claim it was to regain her balance - even if she still didn’t come right out and fess up.
February 20th, 2006 at at 10:40 am
For some reason, I don’t like the term “relativism” when referring to my non-theistic morality. I prefer the term “situational morality”. It is probably just me, but the term “relative” seems to imply subjectivity, while the term “situational” seems to have a connotation more consistent with an objective viewpoint. And honestly, when you have so many wingnuts deriding the term “relative morality” like they did with “liberal”, you look for terms that dissociate from you from those conversation-killing prejudgements.
February 20th, 2006 at at 2:47 pm
I question whether you are truly a moral relativist.
You said:
“The point of this little exercise is to illustrate the fact that societies accumulate their unwritten rules through experience and observation. Most things that are deemed “wrong,” are so categorized because they have been harmful to the individual or the group in the past.”
But I think this logic breaks down at the point when some societies endorse and embrace such ‘wrongs’ and don’t see the harmfulness of it. The newly elected terrorist theocracy in Palestine is a perfect example of that. Government supported terrorism is the preference of the group in that case. Condoning and spreading extreme hatred, racism, and violence in many parts of the Middle East is a commonly understood and respected way of life.
I believe murder is wrong. Some societies (particularly those aforementioned groups) do not adhere to this belief or seem to be in support of that assertion, but it is true nonetheless. Some things are true whether a people or society believes it or adheres to it or not. Otherwise, how can you really rail against atrocities if they are all subjective? Under a truly relativistic premise, what would make your “values” any more right than those of the radical religious extremists and such groups that support and elect them?
February 20th, 2006 at at 3:36 pm
Said Chad:
…so it’s true because you say it is?
February 20th, 2006 at at 6:05 pm
Once again we walk the same landscape. My comments on the subject here.
“Is it both possible that my Guiness is moving and that my Guiness is not moving? Of course it is!”
Braaap! Wrong, Einstein. Your Guiness is moving. Mostly, it’s moving with the same delta-vee as everything else in the room, but then there’s those pesky bubbles, and the head that insists on going the wrong way. Is there any cause for alarm over this? That’s the real question.
As for morality, I am beginning to believe that it does not exist, except as a model, like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I am toying with the premise that everyone acts out of perceived self-interest, and morality is only a corollary method of rationalization.
February 20th, 2006 at at 8:47 pm
Almost forgot: Sin of Pride. This is church propaganda to keep people insecure and subservient. There is no such thing as sin, and there is nothing wrong with pride. The Greek word “hubris” means “false pride”, and some argument might be made against overwhelming ego. What Lindsey Jacobellis did was not that, and it was the usual stupid human nature to pillory her for failing. If one does not exceed one’s ability sometimes, one never finds the limits of that ability. Granted, this might have been a poor time to show off, and the results were not fortunate, but the bullshit that followed is a testament to unsportsmanlike armchair atheletes everywhere. The derision over a mere silver from those that could not make it down the hill in one piece to save their lives should be irrelevant, but is sadly at times as damaging to an athelete’s confidence as the mistake itself. That said, she might want to name her next snowboard “Icarus” as a reminder.
February 21st, 2006 at at 3:41 am
You need to ask what is pride I think. What does it look like, what does it say, and how does it act?
I am sure we would all have different definitions of what we believe the word pride means. As a Social Scientist I have a very broad definition of what pride is according to what it looks like says and does. Having asked yourself what pride is the question is do you like to be on the receiving end of it from others? And how have you felt when others have rightly accused you of being proud and you agree with their appraisal that you have been?
February 21st, 2006 at at 1:00 pm
Pride is essentially the absence of humility, also known as self-deprecation.
February 21st, 2006 at at 1:02 pm
Sorry: Humility is also known as self-deprecation, not pride.
February 21st, 2006 at at 6:36 pm
WOW all these forms of Atheism. Who would have know. Well, I just plain don’t beleive in God. I am not a gnostic atheist or a absolutist. (Well I am a Radical Atheist) I guess I do not beleive in Good and Evil. Well, I don’t beleive in Evil, but I do beleive in Good.
The article is probably right that then all morality becomes relativistic. I buy that. I also think there are such univerals that they go past that, but on what basis. it is probably still relative to something we experience.
February 22nd, 2006 at at 12:07 am
Uberkuh,
Does humility have to involve self-depreciation? I have know humble people in my life (atheists and Christians alike) and they were not self-depreciating in the sense of putting themselves down or not feeling and expressing satisfaction about an achievement or a job well done. Do you like being on the receiving end of a very proud person? Do you wear pride as a badge of honour if you are identified by others as a proud person? Does pride only show itself as ’showing off’ like in I am’s example of the olympian? What is pride? Is pride a negative or positive quality of human nature? Are the affects of pride negative or positive (e.g. does prideful behaviour encourage and build up others or pull them down and discourage them)?
February 22nd, 2006 at at 12:16 am
All Christians, if they adhere to their religious beliefs, display self-deprecatory behavior. To be humble means to submit one’s ego, one’s sense of identity, before a deity as less important than the will of that deity. This is unnatural and harmful to self-esteem. Religious moral standards deprive theists of pride in personal achievement. Pride is self-respect or dignity. It is a product of valuing the self. It can be defined as arrogance, but that connection is generally made by theists who do not value self-esteem.
February 22nd, 2006 at at 2:34 am
Uberkuh says
“Pride is self-respect or dignity. It is a product of valuing the self.”
How many of you agree with Uberkuh’s definition of pride?
I know I do not think of self-respect, dignity and valuing self when I am asked to define the word pride. I wager I am does not have this conception of pride either due to his example, and think your concept of pride should in fact be labeled as ‘healthy self esteeme’ which is not incompatible with my conception of humility or even the Bible or the world’s conception of the word humility. In fact in my opinion healthy self-esteeme is essential to be humble, pride leans towards low self-esteeme that needs to puff itself up before an audience to build it’s image in it’s own eyes and the eyes of others pride is an audience junkie (according to my counselling studies), but humility does not need an esteeme boost because it already has a healthy self-esteeme image and therefore feels no need of showing off in front of an audience to impress others and themselves and bolster their self-esteeme/image.
February 22nd, 2006 at at 12:22 pm
Okay, okay. I admit it. You’re right. I’m wrong.
Damn, I guess I go to Hell now.
Hell yeah!
February 22nd, 2006 at at 4:30 pm
Apparently Uberkuh lacks pride and therefore backed off his definition.
Wikipedia defines pride thusly:
The dictionary defines pride the same way. Now, hubris can come from low self-esteem or exceedingly high self esteem. Pride can be healthy self esteem, but maybe not. You can have low self-esteem and still have pride in your work or appearance or ideas.
A friend of mine likes to say.. “Words have meanings, you know.” And pride means self-respect and respect for your accomplishments. The christian condemnation of pride is a condemnation of hubris on the basic level, and self-esteem on the control level.
What’s her name busted out of a gold because she took pride in something she HAD NOT YET ACCOMPLISHED. That’s one of the ways pride is a societal ill. She got cocky. Hubris. People who overvalue themselves will eventually fail, and if they do it at the wrong time and place society suffers. Further, these people who overvalue themselves often try to force their views on others, causing strife and if we go back to less civil times, violence. (Oh wait, we’re not all that civil now).
So, I’m on board with Uberkuh and I AM in saying pride is a subtle sin. And it damages society in small ways.. all the time.
February 22nd, 2006 at at 9:33 pm
First, being a Christian–and a Catholic at that–I believe I can add something to this conversation. Thus, I believe in absolute morality. The reason pride is a sin is that it undermines this morality.
Case in point: the Iraq War. The Catholic Church has clearly laid out the position for Just War and the war with Iraq does not meet these specifications. Yet there are many Catholics who have supported this war. In doing so, they are saying that they know better than the Church. Since when it comes to declaring doctrine, the Church is infallible, they are also implying that they know better than God.
It then becomes easy to see why pride has been called the root of all evil.
Back to the original point. I in no way believe that atheists are immoral ipso facto. It is equally idiotic to believe that Christians, for example, hold some sort of monopoly on morality. If there is an absolute truth–if–than it is an adherence to this doctrine which would make for moral goodness, regardless of faith.
However, I have noticed that in your dialogue you have used the golden rule as a basis for behaviour. While any sensible soul would surely note that this is the best summation of the entire moral code, it appears to raise a problem. First, if everyone wants to be treated the same (ex. not be murdered), the golden rule becomes an absolute standard. That it is also a rational one is beside the point. If on the other hand people wish to be treated differently, from which standard are we to judge?
If a man wants nothing more than to be socked in the stomach, is he right in going around slugging others? The example is notably absurd, but it shows the problem with “relativism”.
Again, subscribing to atheism does not always go with immorality. I would rather spend time with a humanist like Vonnegut than with Pat Robertson. The fact remains that without an exact standard to live by, deviation from said standard will always be a possibility. The inherent problem is in human nature and comes back to pride, but that is probably only my opinion.
February 23rd, 2006 at at 2:59 am
Glintir Says:
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Apparently Uberkuh lacks pride and therefore backed off his definition.
“Wikipedia defines pride thusly:
Pride refers to a sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, or object that one identifies with.”
The Wikipedia definition seems to have a very narrow definition limited to the positive use of the word pride Glintir. Here’s what my son’s standard primary school dictionary (The Pocket Macquarie Dictionary) says the first meaning of the word pride is:
“PRIDE - 1. High (or too high) opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, worth, etc.”
This dictionary goes on to list the positive versions the Wikipedia has mentioned but lists the above more negative version first, often the first definition is the most common and most used and understood meaning of a word and secondary definitions are usually an implied, lessor or secondary meaning of a word.
For the purpose of I am’s discussion about morality according to the Bible definition theist use and claim is necessary I think it is reasonable to state that the Bible is not condemning the normal and positive aspects of the meaning of the word pride that you have outlined but is referring to the above definition given by my sons primary school dictionary.
February 24th, 2006 at at 9:02 am
I wanted to weigh in on the exchange between SS and Uberkuh, but Glintir stated my position so clearly and succinctly that to do so would be superfluous. I used the word pride in the post because it’s the word Catholic school teachers taught me to use, but I am clearly talking about hubris. To me, outside of a conversation about religion, the word pride has a positive connotation.
February 24th, 2006 at at 12:17 pm
I believe that morality is objective for the same reason that I believe the laws of physics are objective.
February 24th, 2006 at at 1:02 pm
I believe that morality is objective for the same reason that I believe the laws of physics are objective.
When you find an instrument that measures or even detects morality, get back to me.
February 24th, 2006 at at 3:02 pm
I believe that morality is objective for the same reason that I believe the laws of physics are objective.
When you find an instrument that measures or even detects morality, get back to me.
No problem. I think I found the perfect instrument for the measurement of morality. That instrument is any human being. Humans need definite resources and conditions to survive and thrive, and I define morality as actions which best provide for the survival and promotion for a given life form. Since humans objectively need food, for example, we can conclude that sustenance is an objective moral value. In this example, the human body serves as the instrument to measure morality: If the human does not obtain adequate food, that human will eventually die.
Now what if a human says “I dont value food, so morality is relative”? We can conclude that the human is wrong; that he has an error of perception. This is because the instrument of morality measurement, the human being himself, will end up ceasing to be (dying) if he refuses to consume food. According to the definition of morality, this human did not commit the action that best sustained and promoted his life because he ended up dying. Therefore, his moral perception was in error, and the objective morality argument wins because of the brute objective fact that, no matter what this human believes, he needs food to survive and thrive.
Now, this of course hinges on my definition of morality, “actions that best provide for the survival and promotion of a given life form.” Do you or do you not agree with this definition? And if you do agree with this definition, do you still think morality is relative, and why?
February 24th, 2006 at at 3:20 pm
Is this the old “The only absolute is that there are no absolutes” problem rearing its ugly head? Think about it this way. Nothing we have ever experienced (as concepts) is disconnected from everything else and autonomous, so nothing is true without context. At the same time, what is true in context remains true in that context. So, morality can be both relative and absolute, depending on what you mean. From my perspective, this debate is more about ambiguous terminology than the nature of reality.
February 25th, 2006 at at 5:46 am
I am your topic began with:
“Many (if not most) theists claim that morality is impossible without god. They say that a book of rules is the only way to know the right way to behave. I firmly disagree.”
This is what led me to believe that you were refering to the negative definition of the word pride as defined and condemned by the Bible (book of rules) and Christians (theists) this is the definition that the dictionary I quoted outlined also. The Bible does not condemn the positive meanings of pride (e.g. being prould of one’s children, taking pride in your work by doing a good job or a well deserved sense of satisfaction in one’s achievements or a job well done). In fact the Bible gives several definitions and examples of pride (e.g. puffed up with pride, conceited in their own mind thinking themselves to be wise they became fools, and of course the Devil’s unduly high opinion of himself as being in the same standing as his creator to set up his own throne above the heavens etc.). None of the definitions or examples of pride in the Bible fit the positive, normal and innocient definition you are suggesting so it would be dishonest to claim theists and Bible condemn anything other than the definition I quoted from the dictionary:
“PRIDE - 1. High (or too high) opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, worth, etc.”
But if when you say pride you mean the positive aspects I have outlined above which are also secondary meanings of pride, then neither Christians nor the Bible make an issue with that kind of pride. It is nearly impossible to debate something without an acknowledged definition that is agreed upon by the debaters though, so while you may think morality is relative (I don’t obviously) when discussing morality or sin or whatever we have to nail a definition of what it is or else we will just go around and around discussing the relitivity of everything without making a real point about the topic of say pride, or sin or virtue.
February 25th, 2006 at at 6:49 am
I know what you mean though Iam.
In the psychology studies I am doing homosexuality was once classified in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental illness. Because of this, treatments and therapy (including shock therapy) where proposed to cure this mental illness and laws were inacted to deter people from being gay (e.g. arrest and penalties) making it a criminal offence to be gay, much like compulsively setting fire to things (pyromania) is considered to be a mental illness and is treated by psychiatrists and punished by the law. People do not believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness anymore and it has been removed from the DSM as a classification of mental illness now.
But that is not relevant as to determining whether homosexuality is either moral or immoral is it? It could be either moral or immoral without being a mental illness couldn’t it? Some would argue that moralality is relative and subjectively contingent on who is allowed to define it (such as Foucault who was mentioned earlier, he was a gay social theorist and commentator in an age when homosexuality was illegal that debated against homosexuality or other things such as poverty or unemployment being unjustly deemed to be deviant by the state and dealt with through social control strategies). And some would argue it is immoral (the Bible’s position is that it is sin and immorality that is an abomination to God).
I like Foulcault’s reasoning by the way, so I am not bagging him. But making declaring something to be legal or illegal, deviant behaviour or not or a mental illness or not, does not settle the issue either way as to whether homosexuality or pride or other acts are moral or immoral does it?
So perhaps we should look at the reasons why people think something is moral or immoral to understand how we have each arrived at our understanding of what we believe is and isn’t moral.
I believe morality is objective and we all have values and principles that we would stand our grounds on and therefore we have moral principles. The key is to see if the reasoning, experiences or influences that have helped us arrive at our definition of moral values are sound or faulty reasons for judging what is morally right or wrong I think.
February 25th, 2006 at at 7:51 am
Ok this is good stuff. So good in fact that I will save it with numerous other well written articles that I come across. I try to always attribute good works that I save like this to the author. “I am”, just guessing, is a psudonym. What would be a better “author” for this piece?
Z
February 25th, 2006 at at 8:10 am
I only wanted to lend my support for your blog. Congrats and keep going! I have added you to my blogroll.
Toodle oooooooooo,
Beep
February 26th, 2006 at at 2:20 am
zorathruster Says:
“February 25th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Ok this is good stuff. So good in fact that I will save it with numerous other well written articles that I come across. I try to always attribute good works that I save like this to the author. “I am”, just guessing, is a psudonym. What would be a better “author” for this piece?
Z ”
Could you reference it under the blog site address and topic? which is http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/02/18/self-regulating-morality/#comments
That is what I would do if I quoted it in a university assignment, otherwise you will have to convince I am to tell you his real name I guess. Hope this helps
February 26th, 2006 at at 12:41 pm
Okay, a general note to everyone:
GOD or NOT will be hosted at Kingdom Of Heathen tomorrow. Because I have to go to school (depressing, I know), submissions can be sent in until 2:30ish. At the moment, the 2 GOD posts are greatly outnumbered.
That will be all.
February 26th, 2006 at at 1:27 pm
Ok this is good stuff. So good in fact that I will save it with numerous other well written articles that I come across. I try to always attribute good works that I save like this to the author. “I am”, just guessing, is a psudonym. What would be a better “author” for this piece?
Z
A better author for this piece might have been Bob Costas or someone who had studied ethics at a doctoral level. Unfortunately, I wrote it, and I am I AM. I’m guessing that zorathruster is not your given name, so we’re even. Thank you for your praise, but I have no immediate plans to make my identity public.
SS & AK:
I’ll get back to you. You both raised issues I want to address, but I can’t right now.
February 27th, 2006 at at 3:50 pm
I like UberKuhs latest reply in this thread, and how morality is contextual, and depending on what you mean, morality could be considered absolute or relative. Some people will claim that because morality is contextual, it is relative. But I dont think that is the case. All truths are contextual, just like UberKuh said. So while morality for humans may be different than morality for aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy, I still think that morality would be objective for both. I wonder if this confusion over relativity and contextuality is what causes confusion with people who (according to me) erroneously conclude that morality is relative?
I AM, lookin forward to your reply. Its not like I have a problem with relative morality, its just that I dont logically see how morality can be relative when reality itself is objective. Gravity is not relative. Thermodynamics is not relative (but they are both contextual). To me, it seems that the same is true for prescriptive behavior as well as descriptive behavior. Thus, morality is contextual and objective.
February 28th, 2006 at at 4:57 am
I am says:
“Besides, where does a being who goes around calling himself the lord almighty and ruler of heaven and earth get off teaching us about pride?”
Is this a statement of pride by God (e.g. showing off)? Or is it just simply a fact (e.g. He is Almighty as in who is mightier, He is the ruler/Lord of heaven and earth e.g. who could resist His rule if He chose to deal with someone who is wiser than He to rule)?
Is a bird showing off when it flies? No! that is what birds do. Is Bush showing off when he says I am the president of America? No! that is in fact his position that he has a right to claim, it is simply the truth.
The Bible says think of yourself soberly - soberly is the opposite of pride in that while it does not deny the truth (e.g. I am God, the President of America etc.) soberminded self-concepts does not think of itself more highly than it ought, more highly than it has a right to claim as a fact without boast or arrogant exaggeration and pride.
February 28th, 2006 at at 12:14 pm
SS, in Exodus, the God of the Bible describes himself as “a jealous God”. Gee, if I were the Creator of the universe, I would like to think that I would be above such petty human frailties.
But then again, the God of the Bible was created by men who endowed him with all of the qualities they could expect in a human tyrant.
February 28th, 2006 at at 9:17 pm
Tommykey Says:
February 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
“SS, in Exodus, the God of the Bible describes himself as “a jealous God”. Gee, if I were the Creator of the universe, I would like to think that I would be above such petty human frailties.”
The jealousy presented in the Bible in relation to God’s feelings is not a petty human version like you have described namely because God is not human. He is a grown up compared to us. When humans are jealous they sometimes resort to spiteful behaviour (e.g. scratching the paintwork of the offender’s car, punching them or whatever). God is not like that He is a grown up. So the closest version to the God kind of jealousy that we could compare to the human form of it is the jealousy of a mature and loving husband who will guard against other lovers entering his relationship to protect the intimate relationship he has with his wife. This may of course involve getting angry but anger does not necessarily have to be expressed in the form of spiteful or impulsive uncontrolled acts of rage does it? Anger could just as easily be directed into a loving confrontation that restores the monogamous nature of the relationship with out petty acts or violence. This “petty” side of jealousy that you mention is a potential way in which humans may express jealousy (even some humans do not resort to petty acts when they are justly jealous over the compromise of their relationship with their spouse). That is to say that when jealousy is exercised and balanced by love and forgiveness that seeks to restore rather than the desire for revenge or self centred reasons behind petty spite that destroys, it can look quite different from the jealousy you are describing.
March 1st, 2006 at at 9:19 am
The whole point of morality codes and laws in the Bible or any other religious or ethical texts is to build a like-minded community. “This is how WE behave.” A lot of the time, the laws are reactions to things in the surrounding cultures. This is particularly true of the Hebrew purity laws.
Growing up in the midst of the multi-cultural middle east of 5000 years ago - in a geographical area that was a major crossroads for travelers from all around the region - it made sense to write down exactly what would be considered proper behavior and what wouldn’t - right down to the clothes you’d have to wear and the way you’d have to wear your hair.
It’s a controlling mechanism to be sure - but it helps people define themselves, gives them a cultural anchor in order to withstand tumultuous times. Why do you think these simplistic, brain-dead fundamentalist sects are becoming so popular at this terrorized point in our history? Makes life a little easier.
And in terms of God declaring himself almighty - you’ve got that wrong. The human writers of the Bible declared him almighty…
March 1st, 2006 at at 3:58 pm
And in terms of God declaring himself almighty - you’ve got that wrong. The human writers of the Bible declared him almighty…
GEN 17:1
GEN 35:11
Those two are a good start.
March 1st, 2006 at at 4:21 pm
I believe that morality is objective for the same reason that I believe the laws of physics are objective.
When you find an instrument that measures or even detects morality, get back to me.
No problem. I think I found the perfect instrument for the measurement of morality. That instrument is any human being. Humans need definite resources and conditions to survive and thrive, and I define morality as actions which best provide for the survival and promotion for a given life form. Since humans objectively need food, for example, we can conclude that sustenance is an objective moral value. In this example, the human body serves as the instrument to measure morality: If the human does not obtain adequate food, that human will eventually die.
Now what if a human says “I dont value food, so morality is relative”? We can conclude that the human is wrong; that he has an error of perception. This is because the instrument of morality measurement, the human being himself, will end up ceasing to be (dying) if he refuses to consume food. According to the definition of morality, this human did not commit the action that best sustained and promoted his life because he ended up dying. Therefore, his moral perception was in error, and the objective morality argument wins because of the brute objective fact that, no matter what this human believes, he needs food to survive and thrive.
Now, this of course hinges on my definition of morality, “actions that best provide for the survival and promotion of a given life form.” Do you or do you not agree with this definition? And if you do agree with this definition, do you still think morality is relative, and why?
That was a damn good answer, but I’m still not buying it. Given your definition, your argument is pretty solid, despite the fact that your “instrument” is as keen a device for measuring morality as a porcelain vase is for measuring whether or not it’s been hit by a sledgehammer. It does raise issues related to extreme situations like cannibalism in dire need, but I’m not going there because I reject your definition. That’s not how dictionaries treat it, and it’s not how it’s used in common parlance. Morality isn’t about survival; it’s about “right.” In fact, moral relativism isn’t even a moral position because morality, as it is typically defined, can’t be relative. Relativism, when you boil it down, is the position that morality doesn’t even exist. In an objective world, I could look at any action and drop it into one of two boxes (good or bad) regardless of my perspective. On the contrary, I would venture that a minority of actions are good for the actor without being at least somewhat negative for at least one other person. It’s just not a black and white world. I want it to be just as much as you do, but it isn’t.
SS:
Again, I don’t have time to respond to you. Stay tuned.
March 1st, 2006 at at 9:53 pm
I am says:
“SS:
Again, I don’t have time to respond to you. Stay tuned. ”
Same bat time same bat channel
Same bats lol
March 6th, 2006 at at 6:53 am
when discussing morality or sin or whatever we have to nail a definition of what it is or else we will just go around and around discussing the relitivity of everything without making a real point about the topic of say pride, or sin or virtue.
I have found that this is never more of a problem than when discussing religion. The beliefs being debated are so nebulous that it’s easy to start bending words to attack or defend them. Both sides are guilty of subtly or not-so-subtly redefining terms in such a way as to support their points. Just look at the exchange I had with Aaron. We were talking past each other because we were discussing totally different things.
In the psychology studies I am doing homosexuality was once classified in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental illness. Because of this, treatments and therapy (including shock therapy) where proposed to cure this mental illness and laws were inacted to deter people from being gay (e.g. arrest and penalties) making it a criminal offence to be gay, much like compulsively setting fire to things (pyromania) is considered to be a mental illness and is treated by psychiatrists and punished by the law. People do not believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness anymore and it has been removed from the DSM as a classification of mental illness now.
But that is not relevant as to determining whether homosexuality is either moral or immoral is it? It could be either moral or immoral without being a mental illness couldn’t it? Some would argue that moralality is relative and subjectively contingent on who is allowed to define it (such as Foucault who was mentioned earlier, he was a gay social theorist and commentator in an age when homosexuality was illegal that debated against homosexuality or other things such as poverty or unemployment being unjustly deemed to be deviant by the state and dealt with through social control strategies). And some would argue it is immoral (the Bible’s position is that it is sin and immorality that is an abomination to God).
This kind of thing makes me take a step back and say “Hey, maybe the Scientologists aren’t 100% nuts.” (Don’t worry. I’m not undergoing auditing. They’re still 95% nuts.) Psychiatry, as it is practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries, is science by committee, which is always a bad idea. Now, if I believed in morality, I would probably say that something being a mental illness would disqualify it from being immoral. Illness removes volition, and volition (in my hypothetical opinion) is a prerequisite for immorality. However, given the mechanisms in place for determining whether or not something is a mental illness, I don’t entirely trust the system to categorize behaviors in this way.
It’s interesting that you talked about psychiatry and law together. I think they have a lot in common. The DSM and the penal code are both comparable to the Bible in some ways. All three try to categorize behaviors into right and wrong or normal and abnormal. They all come up with different conclusions. So, why is it that a group of highly educated psychiatrists, a group of legislators and a group of religious leaders from a few millennia back come up with such drastically different views? Perhaps there is no right answer.
The way I see it, the law is democratic morality in a way. The people we vote for make laws that (theorectically) represent our views on average. The legislative system is a great way of turning consensus into a rulebook for society. Society needs rules to function, and no one is more qualified than the members of said society to make those rules. So, our laws are a living contract to which we are all signatories. Those who break the contract are punished. Those who dislike the terms strongly enough are allowed to opt out by leaving the country. It’s an efficient way of controlling behavior without imposing an outside will on the people or resorting to the founding of a mythological dictatorship
March 7th, 2006 at at 7:25 am
I am says:
“The way I see it, the law is democratic morality in a way. The people we vote for make laws that (theorectically) represent our views on average. The legislative system is a great way of turning consensus into a rulebook for society. Society needs rules to function, and no one is more qualified than the members of said society to make those rules. So, our laws are a living contract to which we are all signatories. Those who break the contract are punished. Those who dislike the terms strongly enough are allowed to opt out by leaving the country. It’s an efficient way of controlling behavior without imposing an outside will on the people or resorting to the founding of a mythological dictatorship ”
I agree with every thing you have said I am, except the last paragraph: “It’s an efficient way of controlling behavior without imposing an outside will on the people or resorting to the founding of a mythological dictatorship”
Without imposing an outside will on the people? Are you kidding? They are imposing an outside will on the people (I call it social control) through law and psychiatric reasoning (both of which I have studied and passed). When someone (an expert who is allowed to speak on behalf of society and define what is right and wrong and punsihable by law) tells you that a homosexual is an immoral, abnormal, sinful law breaker that must have the aversion therapy of punishment of the law, (they won’t use those words but trust me that is what they mean I have high passes in the subjects, I know) how do you feel if you are a nice and otherwise law abiding homosexual citizen? Can you see and understand the social control principles and invalid judgement of what is wrong and what is right by psychiatric and law judgements which go hand in hand and feed off each other via politicians making statements and legislation and funding psychiatric research which is a harlot that sleeps with the government for the research funds? Ok call me cynical if you wish, but at least I am a person who has studied the disiplines of Social Science, psychiatry and law and am therefore qualified to say that none of the decisions of psychiatry or law is based on actual undeniable facts, but subjective research that finds what it wants to find or is directed (in the case of law) by the legislative whims that politicians enact, enactment does not prove competence, wisdom or superior knowledge just the person enacting has a position of power to encact laws (e.g. presidents and prime ministers can enact laws). The question is are politicians and psychiatrists always right? Obviously my opinion is biased because I have studied all of these subjects (social science, political science and psychiatry) and think they express nothing more than an ‘opinion’ that earns them money to speak it out as an ‘expert’ and ‘authority’ that affects your life and mine. I used homosexuality as an example, but I could present many examples of law and psychiatry that are different and by comparison, uncontroversial issues to homosexuality, and yet still I (who has studied and passed these subjects) question whether it is the “definative answer” to the question of what is moral and right and what is immoral and wrong. That is just my opinion though, you have the right to disagree with me. I think it still comes down to how do we form our world view/values/moral principles of what is right and wrong - moral and immoral and moral, and is our means of judging what is right/wrong moral/immoral sound enough to withstand the rational examination of every person participating and reading this blog, let alone the rest of the world? I think not!! in the case of psychiatry, law and social science, but that is just my opinion.
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:39 pm
Let me give you another example of how experts (pyschologists) who claim their discipline is based on empirical scientific means of deduction (e.g. scientific observations and tests) have created the dominant social statement as a so-called scientific fact about women (in the past) and in doing so they have come into agreement with what their funder’s (the government, politicians) opinions or motives, which in turn becomes an enforcable law that controls people’s lives and imposes the will of the funders (the government) on society and in particular the people it is aimed at (e.g. women). On this occasion the motive of the government for wanting psychology to define women as ‘inferior’ to men was because Capitalism is won’t work in the way the government desires it to without a slave class (women) that does not pursue a career and stays at home nurturing the working class, producing children and taking care of the next generation of workers and taxpayers. This categorising of women to fill the role as an unpaid ’slave class’ that has no rights (e.g. voting rights, equal pay and opportunity) and does longer hours than workers for the good of society needed to be justified by the authority of psychological discourses which then was made laws prohibiting women from doing higher education, getting equal pay etc. so they could never rise above the status of the unpaid but necessary stay at home slave class of society.
Take Leta Hollingworth (1886 - 1939) for instance, she was a psychologist who did pioneering work on adolescent development, mental retardation, and gifted children. She was the first person to use the term gifted to refer to youngsters who scored exceptionally high on intelligence test. Hollingworth (1914, 1916) also played a mojor role in debunking popular theories of her era that purported to explain why women were “inferior” to men. For instance, she conducted a study refuting the myth that phases of the mensrual cycle are reliably associated with performance decrements in women. Her careful collection of objective data or gender differences forced other scientists to subject popular, untested beliefs about the sexes to skeptical, empirical inquiry.
Mary Whiton Calkins 1863 1930 who studied under William James, founded on of the first dozen psychology laboratories in America at Wellesley College in 1891, invented a widely used technique for studying memory, and became the first woman to serve as president of the American Psychology Association in 1905. Ironically, however, she never received her Ph. D. in Psychology. Because she was a woman, harvard University only reluctantly allowed her to take graduate classes as a “guest student.” When she completed the requirements for her Ph. D., Harvard would only offer her a doctorate from its under graduate sister school, Radcliffe. Calkins felt that this decision perpetuated unequal treatment of the sexes, so she refused the Radcliffe degree.
In the case of Calkins you can see that the “Official dominant discourse” that women were “inferior” was at first protected by not allowing women to graduate as Ph. D.s in Psychology so they could not challenge the inferior notion scientifically and therefore free women from the unfair restraints of an unpaid slave class (unequal opportunity and pay, social expectations of gender roles trapping women in the unpaid slave class category etc.).
In the case of Hollingworth, she proved that popular scientific theories and untested beliefs about the sexes were not based on empirical scientific observations and tests at all and after doing proper scientific observations and tests to disprove the psychological arguments that women were inferior she broke the social control of the government over women and forced Psychologists claiming to base their theories on empirical evidence of observation and tests to actual start testing untested beliefs and theories. But as you can see the untested inferior tag which locked women in the gender role of unpaid slave class was inshrined in industrial laws, human rights laws and faculty laws of universities concerning who could graduate to speak as an expert and earn a decent living so as to be independent of the financial support of others. Keep in mind that women did not even have the right to vote so as to protect the politicians who created laws that discriminate against women from being voted out and challenged by women. Homosexuals of course used to be arrested so the control was pretty tight for them too in an attempt to cure what politicians considered an undesired, unproductive and deviant image and element in society that needed to be eliminated.
Not imposing their will on others and dictating the terms and conditions of social life you say I am?
I disagree, both the cases for homosexuals and women in history, and even now, is still controlled to some degree by the “dominant discourses” of psychology which still defines women and homosexuality to some extent, perhaps not how they used to but not how women and homosexuals want to be officially defined, and by government policies and law enactment, which though it has become more subtle in its ways of socially controlling, still has a fairly convincing contol over both women and homosexual’s lives, freedom and options etc. And then there is the race, socio-economic status discrimination etc. and other endless discriminations that were defined by psychologists, enacted in law and promoted by political policies and authority, the list of people that have or are socially controlled by a combination of psychological definition, political policies and authority and enactments of law is endless and staggering.