is morality timeless?
you are reading the bible like a layman, you can extract meaning but not scholarship
I had a dead-end comment chat with a Christian recently. Not that big a surprise, I guess, as I’ve had a few since starting on this blogging adventure. This one died a death when his trump card consisted of telling me I wasn’t interpreting the Bible correctly, as I’m not a Bible scholar. For instance, this extract from the 10 Commandments:
I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
Apparently, ‘jealous’ is the wrong word, even though it’s found in most translations. And also, if I understand correctly, the threat given here isn’t horrendously cruel and immoral if you view it in it’s correct historical and cultural context.
The Christian I was discussing this with was clearly on a different intellectual plane from me, as I couldn’t quite follow his logic. But I understood he was attempting to defend a point that morality is subjective and has evolved differently in different societies. I’m not sure how this relates to a benevolent deity that knows everything, but it did raise an interesting point for me: can morality be viewed as timeless?
How I’m seeing it, is that morality is a tool that humanity is shaping down through history. As life, for some of us at least, is less brutal and more contemplative, and as the exchange of information and ideas accelerates with technology, people have the luxury of reconsidering and evaluating things they took for granted in their culture or society. People are doing studies into every aspect of life that give us evidence to support claims that might otherwise have been written off as fringe opinion.
I think I’m right in saying that down through history, every standard belief or act that was traditionally accepted, was unsupported by others or challenged along the way. That’s clearly how things eventually change. At the height of the slave trade, I’m sure there were many people who found the idea morally repugnant. When witches were being executed in medieval Europe I am convinced there were many in the crowd mumbling, this is ridiculous! I’m also quite sure that the majority of humans will eventually reject the consumption of sentient animal flesh, and opt for less painful protein sources.
Perhaps morality is a misleading term. Perhaps it’s just this: what is logically the best way to treat other people? It comes down to what sort of society you want to live in. Most people want to be respected and treated well by others, and it’s so obvious this can only happen if this is how you treat others. Common sense and a few studies will tell you this. Or Jesus, if you prefer.
So, I guess in the days of the Moses, power was what was respected – the power to discipline, the power to threaten, the power to punish. Countless studies (and common sense) have undoubtedly now shown that revenge and punishment don’t lead to a better functioning society, and that punishing people for the ‘misdeeds’ of their ancestors is really rather weird and unproductive. As such, these notions are kind of out of fashion. I’m not entirely clear how a very clever god living a timeless existence wouldn’t have reached that conclusion earlier. But then I’m no Bible scholar.
Yes, morality is timeless, assuming we will not evolve into spiritual vapors. Probably even at that point it will exist. Humanity has always found new ways to exact violence and oppression, but, I won’t be around by then, will let you younger folks think about that! 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I was surprised to discover I think it is too! I’m still mulling over this one …
LikeLike
I think morality has evolved. Teamwork helped us frail humans survive through the stone ages. On our own, we would have been eaten by bears/lions/etc. in no time, but together, we became strong. Working together requires functional community. It requires empathy, which (I believe) is the basis of all morality. Empathy became necessary for our survival, so we became moral agents.
That was a great point about how morality isn’t even timeless in the Bible. Surely that is proof that it could not be divinely inspired. Christians argue that God was working with the particular people of the time and it was acceptable in this particular context. I don’t see how that can be true if there is any sort of objective moral standard, which Christians claim there is. So many logical inconsistencies!
Thanks for a really interesting post! 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I don’t get how Christians can’t understand that human moral standards have naturally evolved. I’m guessing most of them don’t believe animals have souls, so I’ve tried pointing out that my street dog (lots of homeless dogs in this part of the world) does not commit random acts of violence and shows love and affection to all who show it to her. This is a kind of basic morality that evolves for the sake of survival – no deity required. The shifting morality in the Bible, and just how out of date so much of it is, really stuns me. But people always find weird interpretations and explanations to justify it all.
What I probably wasn’t very clear about in the post, is that I concluded there may indeed be a timeless morality – a definitive standard for measuring acceptable behaviour. It’s probably something as simple as “Is that a nice thing to do?”. Again, no deity required.
LikeLike
“Yes, I don’t get how Christians can’t understand that human moral standard have naturally evolved”
Well, if you take the sociobiological view, conscience is a by-product of evolutionary conditioning. I fail to see how this means that moral standards have evolved. At most it shows that our way of apprehending those standards have evolved. This isn’t necessarily incompatible with Christianity. Secondly, lets assume for the sake of argument that moral standards can somehow evolve, how can you believe that they are still binding, in this case? If we know that the only reason we think there is such a thing as morality is because it served some evolutionary advantages then there is no more reason to obey morality. Or, put differently, Hume famously said that an “ought” cannot be derived from an ” is”
LikeLike
Hi Louis, I was going to write a thoughtful and pleasant reply to this, but having just seen the nasty sexist gunk you have posted on your own page, it’s going to take some effort. ‘Morality’ in itself is a much misunderstood term, probably created by religious people to ‘prove’ a deity exists. We’re just talking about basic social norms that most naturally developed animals of our type have, that create an environment we can prosper in. There’s nothing binding about it, it just makes sense to *most* of us because we evolved this way.
LikeLike
I completely agree. It’s absolutely crazy how Christians argue that there can be no morality without God. Especially considering the atrocities God supports in the Bible. We don’t need a complex set of laws given by a God, all we need is our empathy.
LikeLike
Now this is exactly my point. That sounds like nihilism. Morality is binding by definition. If moral norms are not something we must do, or not something we ought to do, then they are just other reasons for acting with nothing special about them. In fact, if we take the view that they evolved, then there is nothing to recommend a moral action over an immoral action, if both are conducive to survival and reproduction. For example, selfishness and spite also evolved, according to some sociobiologists, which means that, on your view, there is nothing better about acting altruistically, than about acting selfishly or spitefully.
LikeLike
Your conclusion “there is nothing to recommend a moral action over an immoral action” is laughable. If you’re going to accept the rest of my argument up to that point, then you also have to accept that empathy is part the behaviour we have evolved. That alone tempers some of the negative behaviour you mention. Acting to make the world a nicer place (i.e. by holding altruism is higher regard than selfishness or spite) is a natural instinct for any creature who wants to care for their offspring. And apart from all that, logical thinking tells anyone over the age 10 (and quite a few under that age) that negative behaviours, such as spite, are not rewarding. Most of us don’t need an imaginary deity to make us realise that living conditions improve for all of us when display certain positive behaviours. Morality may not be binding, but logic is. If you personally cannot see this, I suspect you’ve had a traumatic experience or a difficult upbringing which has led to the displacement of the normally naturally evolved moral compass, and I respectfully suggest you seek therapy.
LikeLike
My point isn’t that immoral behaviour wouldn’t be preventable on a purely sociobiological account of morality. My point is that, on a purely sociobiological account morality would not be objective- it would not be obligatory. The point is not that the biological motive for acting to make the world a better place is not contained in a sociobiological account, but that we have no objective reason to value making to world a better place. “Morality may not be binding, but logic is”. We can only use logic on morality if we already have an objective moral ideal. We can only use logic to further the ideal of making the world a better place, if we already know that ideal is binding ( otherwise, why should we use logic to further that ideal?).
LikeLike
I think you’ve misunderstood, again. I’m not suggesting that we use logic on morality, I’m suggesting that morality is logic. It’s the logical way to treat other people for the whole host of evolutionary reasons mentioned. You’ve clearly overthought this and lost all sense of what morality actually is. I remember as a teenager wondering why my atheist physics teacher, not believing in a god, would spend his life teaching such a dull subject to a bunch of teenagers who hated him. Why was he not running wild, enjoying life, having an ‘immoral’ crazy time – like Madonna?? The imaginings of an ignorant Christian teenager don’t quite equate with the real world.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, the morality issue.
What do the Wiccans say? Something about do no harm? A bit pithy but on the right track. And unless one is a social misfit or suffering from some for of mental illness, then morality really isn’t that hard to figure out.
One thing for sure, there is absolutely no need for any form of religious intervention on any level to decree what are considered good morals
I read the post by your mate Louis, and I find in such instances the best way to test a theory is to reverse the situation. In other words imagine if it was the woman who asked the bloke to her room at 4.am for a coffee what would I immediately think?
Well,it doesn’t require a degree in human relations to guess what would be on my mind. So even if this bloke was celibate, or neutered or gay,he’d have to be completely clueless about social mores not to know that one just doesn’t ask a woman to one’s room at 4 in the morning for coffee, without her expecting you mean “Coffee” . Nudge nudge, wink wink.
I was going to say that your mate, Louis was a dickhead, especially after reading his post on this, but I shall refrain.
LikeLike
Poor Louis, I suspect he’s an angry teenager and he may have had a difficult childhood. At least he’s attempting to think about things. He might make his way out the box one day.
LikeLike
Didn’t his mummy ever tell him there are some things one just doesn’t do when one is alone with a woman at 4 a.m? Lady or otherwise.:)
And if he uses this approach on a woman he meets in a lift at 4.am. he mustn’t be surprised if she makes a formal complaint.
LikeLike
lol… Anyway, I’ve written a follow-up post on the subject. On morality, its important to remember that to use logic, one requires presuppositions. Logic is a method. Logic is whether the move from the premisses to the conclusion is sound. Morality cant be logic. As for the evolutionary reasons, I can only refer you to what I said in my first comment- Hume’s point that an “ought” cannot be derived from an “is”. Simply because evolution allowed morality to evolve for specific reasons, doesn’t mean we are obligated to adhere to morality for those reasons. Your comment about your physics teacher isn’t apt. I’m not saying we can’t perceive morality without belief in God, but that morality would mean nothing without the existence of God ( which also applies to Arkenaten’s comments).
LikeLike
My comment about the physics teacher was to illustrate that you are probably unable to imagine the simplicity of life without belief. I may be wrong in that you might have converted last year, and up until the moment of your conversion you were bursting with what would be viewed immoral behaviour, and only now, with the help of your invisible god’s rules, can you control yourself. If this is the case, I would suggest you revisit my suggestion that a traumatic experience or unpleasant upbringing has knocked the normally innate moral compass, and therapy is probably a good option. I’m not being facetious.
Morality for me is a misleading label for analysing risk and probability (in terms of outcome) with regards to our behaviour towards other beings. There is no feeling of ‘ought to’ (although thank you for recognising that Scots are eminent thinkers). It’s basic stuff like – if I’m nice to this person, it’s likely they’ll be nice back. If I steal this piece of bread, I won’t die today, but I might feel bad that I’ve lost someone their deserved income, and I might get into trouble. Maybe some people have a feeling of ‘ought to’ because they believe in a rigid moral framework of ‘do and don’t rules’ that doesn’t allow them to use their logic and common sense!
“morality would mean nothing without the existence of God”
Actually, you’re completely right! Because we are just talking about how we choose to treat others, based on what we think the short-term and/or long-term outcomes would be. People that attempt to live by pre-written rules they believe a god wants them to adhere to are lost in a world of ‘ought to’.
Thanks for clearing that up Louis! I couldn’t have done it without you. 🙂
LikeLike
I see morality as behavior (an extension of empathy) which increases the well being of the society, and with it the individual. It’s not complicated. What’s complicated is resolving the conflicts between the well being of the individual, and the society. If I steal a loaf of bread I’m better off, but if everyone starts stealing, society (and I) are worse off. It’s a balancing act that if not understood, raises the question ‘what is the transcendent source of morality?’.
LikeLike
You’re Australian. What do you know about anything! 😉
LikeLike
I think through the course of this post I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just how you should logically treat other people. Taking your bread example, if you’re not hungry and you steal bread, you’re disrespecting someone’s way of making a living, but if you’re starving, it’s an act of desperation and the balance of loss of income is negligible. In fact, the onus would be on the other person to give you the bread. Anyway, there’s no point in over-thinking it, I’ve seen where that leads. Suffice to say, it’s not magic, and the god in the Bible didn’t manage to make it look timeless.
LikeLike
@Louis
“…..but that morality would mean nothing without the existence of God ( which also applies to Arkenaten’s comments).”
No matter what context you want to put this statement in, you are now officially a plonker, my old son.
LikeLike