a post about morality for insanity
For the most part, people do not recognize that there are consequences for their actions. Instead, most people justify their actions and only alter their behavior when they think it will be beneficial for them to do so. (Insanitybytes22)
What we call ‘Morality’ is often instinctive – it can be an animal reaction with little conscious thought that may once have kept us alive. An eye for an eye is a good example. If someone attacks you, you attack back. A friend once told me that when her young daughter pulls her hair, she pulls it right back, so that the little girl understands the pain she is causing and will stop her behaviour. This struck me as wrong, but I think from the cultural morality point of view – don’t hurt children.
So when my daughter cheekily yanked at my hair the other day, I was surprised to find that my instant reaction was either whack her or pull her hair back. I’m not sure if I can separate the roots of my instinct between upbringing and the animal reaction to bite back – perhaps a combination of the two. Obviously I didn’t strike my daughter or attempt to show her the pain by doing it back to her, because cultural morality tells me hurting children for any reason is wrong. But maybe more importantly, I know that showing a child violence, in any form, only serves to help them understand that violence is acceptable. Even hair-pulling.
I’ve stated on many occasions that morality is learned and it constantly evolves. It evolves because as humans we are constantly learning about ourselves and our environment, and this changes our behaviour. And when our behaviour changes because evidence tells us there is a better, more constructive way of behaving and living, we pass this on to the next generation, and it becomes natural, instinctive for them. We model, they observe it, they imitate it and they live it. They, in turn, will go on in their lives to learn about things that we could have done better, they’ll make the conscious change to the their learned behaviour, and pass it on to their offspring in turn, should they decide it’s morally correct to breed or have an opportunity to become a parent.
This is the bigger movement of human society, this is the idealistic model: it doesn’t magically wing its way round the whole world, and it doesn’t happen to every person in every society. People can go backwards, people can stick to the same rules for generations because there is little room for movement within the rigid cultural framework. People can be brought up in cruel and empathy-lacking environments, with poor role models and little opportunity to sit around philosophising about morality or read about research on more constructive parenting techniques. The two general tools at our disposal to spread the changes that evidence and logic tell us are necessary for a fairer and nicer society, are state education and civil law. Unfortunately, if you think the government is out to get you, this may not be reassuring.
Brazilians tend to have a very strange approach to moral behaviour. They act well within the extended family unit, but typically act horribly outside it.
LikeLike
In what way? Robbing and cheating?
LikeLike
Being naughty, “me-first” attitude. It manifest the worst on the roads.
LikeLike
Atheists think everything happens all by itself.
But it doesn’t.
Morality is instilled in the young through great effort that lasts years and years.
That’s why the family led by married man and woman is so important.
LikeLike
Josef Fritzl?
LikeLike
Pink,
No, common sense.
LikeLike
Marriage makes no one moral, is my point.
LikeLike
Marriage isn’t supposed to make anyone moral.
Marriage requires a moral man and woman.
LikeLike
Does it? Is there a morality clause that invalidates marriage?
LikeLike
On what planet does marriage require a moral man and woman? Holy crap! Morality is set in stone long before we reach maturity – it has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with how we treat one another. A same sex couple is no less moral than traditional unions. “Biblical morality”, is nothing more than hot air jibber-jabber lurking insidiously within the closed minds of so called “Christians” I call bullshit on your dusty old blithering that morality will be jeopardised without families led by a man and woman.
Are you trying to tell us morality resides purely in traditional families? That married men don’t cheat on their wives or beat their children? That Lesbian couples can’t instil values or nurture their children? Get your head out of the sand because the world is changing and holier than thou judgemental nonsense can’t do a damn thing about it.
LikeLike
Wisp,
Marriage requires total commitment, fidelity, and self-sacrifice; a total giving of self.
That’s what morality is.
LikeLike
Morality is SO MUCH more than marriage. It is an intrinsic code of conduct – one that guides us through life. Knowing right from wrong is what makes us human – commitment, fidelity and sacrifice are aspects of morality – but it doesn’t end there. I happen to believe it’s immoral for fire and brimstone televangelists to live in million dollar mansions, drive around in Cadillac’s and live high on the hog – financed by staged tent shows aimed at separating poor, vulnerable followers from their meagre cash. I see no morality in sexually abusing children within the holy confines of the church, slipping the offending clergy out the back door and pretending a few hail Mary’s will make it right.
By the way – as usual you didn’t answer any of my questions. If you cling to the notion that the only defense is offense – sorry to say but it just makes you into a blithering wind-bag. I for one have nothing more to say to a person who consistently dodges questions. Honestly, you come across as silly.
LikeLike
Wisp,
My claim is that marriage requires a moral man and woman.
And my claim is obvious to anyone who has ever been married.
LikeLike
First off – this is notestoponder not Wisp. Tomorrow is my 32nd wedding anniversary so drop the marriage line.Lastly – I give up because you’re clearly incapable of thinking outside any box other than your closed world. I doubt you even read my comments, and if you did and still haven’t grasped the importance of explaining yourself by addressing the questions posed – have a nice life, I haven’t the patience, energy or inclination to bother with hamster wheel logic.
LikeLike
Notes,
Why drop the marriage line when it is something you are so familiar with?
You know full well that my claim is correct.
And you know that morality doesn’t happen all by itself.
If you and your husband hadn’t spent nearly 2 decades teaching your children the difference between good and evil, than they would have absolutely no idea about morality.
For they would have been hellion brats and children, merciless bullies as adolescents and psychopathic criminals as adults.
Morality, put simply is the collection of behaviors that allow human nature to flourish.
And man of all the animals is the only one who has no idea what he’s about.
Man must learn everything, especially morality.
LikeLike
Ha ha, I can’t believe you got sucked in by silenceofmind’s nonsense! He’s not a troll, I did a post where he clarified that he’s NOT a troll. So we all believe him. 😀
LikeLike
I’d like to say I did it purely for your amusement but that would be a lie. Sigh – I succumbed to his jibber jabber and feel SO dirty. Not a troll? Too funny 🙂
LikeLike
Please explain exactly how you come to think that a man and woman have to both be present to impart moral thinking and behavior in a child, or is that you simply end every post comment with a statement about marriage being between only one man and only one woman?
Secondly, can the woman be his mistress? Maybe an au pair? How about a slave woman? Does it have to be the man’s wife?
Does the morality instilling last for years and years or is it that the effect lasts for years and years? If the latter, at what age does it wear off? As I approach retirement should I expect to need a moral teaching booster class?
As for your comment about atheists, it clearly shows that you have little to no understanding of atheism or atheists. Why do you speak so boldly on a topic you clearly have little knowledge of?
LikeLike
Si, everything happened by itself.
It did.
Morality is instilled in the young through simple modelling of appropriate behaviour that lasts years and years.
That’s why the a good family environment for children is so important, whatever shape it takes.
LikeLike
“I’ve stated on many occasions that morality is learned and it constantly evolves”
At one point I also agreed with this, but I don’t anymore. People’s morality hasn’t evolved at all, society’s definition of morality has. Babies have been pulling hair since time began and mothers have been coping with it in various ways. We did not suddenly become enlightened as if all our ancestors were just immoral barbarians who smacked their kids. Also a bit funny Violet, I too never pulled hair back, since back then I shared your current views. I’ve since changed my mind, I actually made the immoral choice. Now that the kids are mostly grown, I’m aware that some of the best things I ever did for them were the result of that instinctual barbaric nature you talk about. Kids who never get to see the reality of the consequences of their actions grow up with a very distorted perception of the world. We are after all, biological creatures. Pull somebody else’s hair, someone besides your parents, and they’ll probably pop you one. 95% of the world is not as “enlightened” as your parents were.
“People can be brought up in cruel and empathy-lacking environments, with poor role models and little opportunity to sit around philosophising about morality or read about research on more constructive parenting techniques.”
Have you ever researched serial killers? Fascinating stuff. We like to believe that evil is based on how people are raised, what role models they have in their lives, how behavior was modeled to them, but it turns out that there is a whole more to the story that we just don’t understand. Some kids come from hell and turn out quite lovely, others are raised by caring people, given all the best opportunities, and become what can only be termed as outright evil. People with psychopathic tendencies can be perfectly lovely people, while those with no such flaws can have a backyard full of dead bodies.
The truth is, we don’t understand evil any better than we understand morality. We can’t even figure out what causes either one, but we do know that it’s not just a simple case of mirroring the behavior of those who raised us.
LikeLike
@insanitybytes
==The truth is, we don’t understand evil any better than we understand morality. We can’t even figure out what causes either one, but we do know that it’s not just a simple case of mirroring the behavior of those who raised us.==
How do you define evil? I’m curious. As far as I’m aware there is no method availble to determine what causes that which cannot be defined. I’m also very curious how you can _know_ that it’s not simply mirroring behavior if it cannot even be defined?
LikeLike
Evil can be defined. In the dictionary it’s referred to as sin, immoral, deceitful and destructive. Evil is a malevolent and highly intelligent thing that walks the earth. However, not being Christians you’re unlikely to accept that definition. Without the Christian context, I guess there can’t be any evil, which the leads me to conclude that without a Christian context, morality can’t really be defined either.
LikeLike
and with no gods, there is still morality. How does one reconcile this?
Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
“his evil deeds”
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More
malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, dark;
monstrous, shocking, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, execrable;
informallowdown, dirty
“an evil deed”
antonyms: good, virtuous
(of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil.
“we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit”
harmful or tending to harm.
“the evil effects of high taxes”
synonyms: cruel, mischievous, pernicious, malignant, malign, baleful, vicious; More
destructive, harmful, hurtful, injurious, detrimental, deleterious, inimical, bad, ruinous
“an evil spirit”
antonyms: good, beneficial
(of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant.
“a bathroom with an evil smell”
synonyms: unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, horrible, foul, disgusting, filthy, vile, noxious More
“an evil smell”
antonyms: pleasant
noun: evil – profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
Evil seems to be one of those religous oriented words to define something that still has no real definition. You can trace down any of those words and still not have a definitive notion of what evil is because it is always the opposite of some good characteristic. There is no solid definition and any that you think are solid are context sensitive. Nothing can be evil except in comparison to some other subjective value.
You clearly think there is a fixed definition yet what you offered is context sensitive and subjective.
Then you conflate a definition that does not mean anything fixed with the supposed non-existence of the context you use. This is simply circular argument to try to justify subjective beliefs as more than what they are.
LikeLike
“This is simply circular argument to try to justify subjective beliefs as more than what they are.”
Here’s the deal. Humans are simply incapable of ever attaining complete objectivity on anything. How we observe objective reality is based on our subjective perceptions of it. I can tell you that evil as an entity exists outside of us in objective reality but unless your subjective brain is willing to submit to the possibility, you won’t be able to see it.
There actually is no morality outside of God. Those who do not believe in God ,but behave morally anyway, are simply mirroring the behavior of believers and responding to society’s system of rewards and punishments.
LikeLike
Lots of non-Christians believe in evil and morality. The problem of evil is in fact an argument many atheists make against Christianity. it assumes evil exists.
The classic explanation of how morality will exist without God comes from the Euthyphro dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
As a Christian I tend to think the first horn is correct way to think about morals. I think wikipedia overstates the “problems” this creates for Christians. But whatever wikipedia gives a decent Idea of things.
LikeLike
That’s interesting, thanks for the link. I was a Christian for many years without believing in evil at all. That complete U-turn, like so many others in my life, has convinced me that morality is defined by God, I have no problem putting my complete trust in God as the definer of all morality, but from a non believers perspective, I can see how this would be difficult.
Psychologically, emotionally, I know that God would never expect me to do anything that felt immoral, that didn’t sit right with me, because God is good and doesn’t wish to harm me, so that doesn’t present a dilemma, but again, I think I understand why it would for a non believer.
LikeLike
Did you teach about how others might react to such things – how pulling hair increases the likelihood of reciprocation of such action?
I think some sort of reciprocation in order to initially teach the lesson is necessary, and then have that lesson in mind to remind in similar situations.
I think it is similar to how unions function in the workplace. If there is a significant threat of unionization (reciprocation for poor treatment of employees), then there is much less bad treatment of employees in general within a society. Of course, too much reciprocation (too much union power) has its own troubles.
LikeLike
“Pull somebody else’s hair, someone besides your parents, and they’ll probably pop you one.” Indeed, but children learn the majority of their behavioural instincts from those closest to them – that’s the point.
“Have you ever researched serial killers?” Not seriously. But I did some investigating for a post about the death penalty and found all the ones I looked at had horrible lives as children.
Can you give me some examples of people with lovely upbringings who’ve gone on to be serial killers? I didn’t find any.
“The truth is, we don’t understand evil any better than we understand morality. We can’t even figure out what causes either one, but we do know that it’s not just a simple case of mirroring the behavior of those who raised us.”
You’re mistaken. You’re talking about some very odd and specific members of society. Of course we don’t understand the roots of everyone’s behaviour, but most people behave in alarmingly similar ways to their parents. (alarming for them 🙂 )
LikeLike
“…but most people behave in alarmingly similar ways to their parents…”
Ha! That’s a good point Violet. It is alarming how similar we are to our parents. However, not quite true when it comes to our actions. We may have our parent’s characteristics, but we do not have to repeat their actions, their morality. Have you had teen agers yet? Yikes! They teach you a whole bunch about defiance, rebellion, and how humans separate from their parents and create their own identities.
LikeLike
Yes, and they get through the other side and start behaving EXACTLY like their parents. 🙂
LikeLike
“evidence tells us there is a better, more constructive way of behaving and living,”
This is pretty vague.
What is this evidence of what is better? What are we trying to construct and how do we know its better to construct that as opposed to something else?
LikeLike
If we take the hair pulling as a basic example, all studies show that being violent to children causes them to be more violent:
http://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/violent-behavior.aspx
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/parenting/discipline-behavior/spanking/10-reasons-not-hit-your-child
Evidence – studies looking at the outcomes of different types of behaviour.
LikeLike
I am not in favor of hair pulling or anything. But there is a deeper problem. What is guiding our beliefs about what is right or wrong.
As a Christian I think my feeling that it is wrong to pull my child’s hair is appropriate because I believe an all knowing God helped shape me to hold that view. I also have this feeling that lots or random violence might be bad but there is also a time when we might morally use violence.
As an atheist you don’t really have any reason to think these emotions are guided by truth any more than a male lion might have the urge to kill young lion cubs that are not his own right? I mean the evolution that brought about animals is also what explains you. You don’t think there was any special evolution for humans do you? Will you just let these emotions guide you through your life even though you have no reason to think they have basis in truth?
Is it rational to have your life be guided by emotions that you have no reason to think are based in truth?
LikeLike
@Trueandreasonable, I am glad you brought that “problem” up.
As an atheist I think my feelings, that it would be wrong to pull a child’s hair is appropriate because I believe there are consequences to my actions. That good and bad are determined by the actual harm and feelings it causes in living beings and as a human first and foremost in one of us. Or a similar species that might have equal, or close to similar, cognitive abilities. That all our actions and inactions affect the environment of each of us. That whith our human capability to understand the consequences of our actions we also have evolved – as humans – to be especially responsible for our actions. That does by no means set our evolution apart from the evolution of other life forms. But equally as a lion is capable of percieving it’s environment in far more wider scope than a tree, a human has the capacity to percieve the results of her/his actions in a far more ranging scope to that of a lion.
As a Christian you don’t really have any way of knowing what is right, or wrong. Do you? Is it right, or wrong to stone homosexuals to death? Is it right, or wrong to be submissive to your owner, if you happen to be a slave? Is it right, or wrong for you to grow a long hair, if you are a man? Is killing infidels right, or should one take part in builiding a society whith freedom of religion? Should we use nuclear, or fossilic fuels to produce energy, or should we not produce more energy? Should we expand life onto other planets?
Is it rational to assume there is a highly moral entity setting the ground rules for morals who alledgedly begins whith rules like: do not eat shellfish, but never gets to rules like: do not have sex whith little children?
The “feelings” of empathy, compassion and other social skills that evolution has granted not only to us humans but to a lot of mammals at least are a very good evolutionary survival mechanism and they serve us very well in both surviving in the competition of survival of the fittest and in finding out what is ultimately right and wrong. Our understanding has already evolved on a level where we are able to undersand (well, some of us at least) how the global environment affects us as species, why should we value it and how delicate is the balance on which our own existance and wellbeing is hanging on. Be there gods or not, this is the “truth” that we the humanity are facing at the moment.
Of course right and wrong are based on the truth. But how do we know what is the truth? By researching and making science? By evaluating ethics of actual harm and benefits of any actions and inactions in as wide a scope we possibly can in any given situation? Or by “interpreting an ancient book riddled whith obvious tribal moralism?
LikeLike
“The “feelings” of empathy, compassion and other social skills that evolution has granted not only to us humans but to a lot of mammals at least are a very good evolutionary survival mechanism and they serve us very well in both surviving in the competition of survival of the fittest and in finding out what is ultimately right and wrong.”
I agree with the whole survival mechanisms. But my understanding of evolution from any science text book left out that bit about evolution helping us know what is ultimately right and wrong.
Evaluating “harm” and “benefits” is pretty vague. Its hardly better than saying its “good” or “bad”.
Science will not help you with that. Science is a study that takes empirical data. The problem is wrongness does not manifest itself in an empirical way. BTW this is also why if we are the product of evolution and naturalism is also true our moral beliefs will not be able to track the truth in a reliable way.
Its not just Christians who see this problem. Many atheists also see it.
The ultimate questions of morality are beyond science. Your thinking it is science is just as bad as people thinking creationism is science.
“As a Christian you don’t really have any way of knowing what is right, or wrong. Do you?”
Yes we do. As a Christian I do not believe my emotions related to morality are just the byproduct of evolution. I think they point to something deeper. There are of course legitimate open questions in Christianity. But morality is not such a completely bust if this model is true as it is if naturalism is true.
LikeLike
Yes we do.
No. You don’t.
What you believe can not be substantiated by any verifiable evidence whatsoever. In fact, what you do believe is based solely on fallacious text largely derived from false interpretation of prophecy from an even older set of texts that the consensus of relevant, qualified scholars these days consider fiction.
So, in a nutshell, your core beliefs, hinge on the acceptance of lies.
LikeLike
Ark,
That would be true except for the fact that the Judeo-Christian beliefs were in play decades before any scriptures were written.
Christianity is a living faith and doesn’t depend on scripture.
Scripture is beneficial because by reading it one accesses the mind of the author, who is God.
But Christ lives in each of us so all we have to do is gather together in his name.
For it is each person that we see Christ.
LikeLike
Why oh why did I agree to stop calling people like you dickheads?
I really must ask Violet if Plonker would be more acceptable for surely you would be the perfect mashed-brain, a’hole to try it out on.
LikeLike
Ark,
An insult in the face of the truth is you admitting you’re the loser.
LikeLike
Yes, sadly, this is true. However, you are still an a’hole, so I am prepared to accept this trade-off.
LikeLike
Ark
If what you believe is true, then what you believe can not be substantiated by any verifiable evidence whatsoever. In fact, what you do believe is based solely on emotions largely derived as byproducts of an evolutionary process that is not even aimed at giving reliable beliefs about morals.
So in a nutshell your core beliefs might as well have been derived from tasseology.
LikeLike
Ah…well here we go back to the burden of proof argument, do we not; irrespective of what the Tea Leaves say. And this burden still rests with the religious, I’m afraid.
And as I have oft stated, what drivel we believe as an ADULT is perfectly all right by me….and it IS a right, and is ( I hope) based on freedom of choice.
Just don’t proselytize and impose such beliefs on others who are not in a position to exercise critical thought. This action – along with disgusting practices such as genital mutilation on religious grounds – should be considered a violation of human rights.
Let the kids become adults and then they can work it out for themselves.
And this is what should ( somehow) be implemented
into the framework of a democratic, secular humanist society.
And if your god is what you claim it is, it would be nodding in agreement.
Yet, so far, we have no evidence that it or any other deity exists, and thus, you have no moral right whatsoever to impart any form of god belief, especially with its accompanying baggage of reward and punishment (hell) onto children.
Yours or anyone else’s.
Period.
LikeLike
Ark
I think this is covering the same ground we covered on my blog here:
But you are sidestepping the main issue. Are your beliefs about how to live your life any better than beliefs derived from tasseology?
As far as a burden of proof. I have no burden to prove anything. Neither do you.
LikeLike
Well, this goes around in circles. And as I say…you are entitled to believe in any cockamamie half-arsed mumbo jumbo you wish. And I am fine with this…truly.
Just don’t think you have the right to impose such a crock onto kids….yours or anyone else’s.
LikeLike
Thanks for the input Ark.
Sadly I don’t think you are drawing on a reliable source for your beliefs about what my rights are. So I will respectfully disregard your advice.
LikeLike
LOl….Of course you will disagree. Your entire worldview is based on the premise that a literary construct rose from the grave, so why on earth would you even bother to consider that imposing such disgusting nonsense on kids was wrong in any sense.
You disagree with ACE education yet are adamant that your brand of religion is not only right, but essential for Salvation, whatever that is!
And I would be EXTREMELY interested in an explanation if you felt up to it.
The religious are probably the single most bigoted,hypocritical group of individuals on the planet, and the more religious, the worse these traits.
You are merely another Poster Boy for such idiocy and sadly, confirm this with every comment you make.
That you are an educated professional merely increases the surprise of the normal people that comment in these blogs.
I hope your children grow up healthy and happy and are able to walk away from the diatribe you are currently pushing.
Peace.
LikeLike
Hello Ark
“You disagree with ACE education yet are adamant that your brand of religion is not only right, but essential for Salvation, whatever that is!
And I would be EXTREMELY interested in an explanation if you felt up to it.”
I don’t think only Catholics go to heaven if that is what you mean. I do think Christianity more likely gives us the true way to know moral right and wrong and God. And I think Catholics have the best claim to be the truest form of Christianity. But Orthodox Christians are not far behind. Its very close IMO. If I die and God tells me he is actually Calvinist I won’t argue.
Is that the explanation you wanted?
LikeLike
No. This does not explain the argument for Salvation, or what it is, or even why it is necessary.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard of “the” argument for salvation. I suppose one could be made but if it has been made and people refer to it I admit I am ignorant of it.
Do you mean to ask why should we want to be saved? Or do you mean how are people saved?
If its the latter I can only give what might be what I consider the normal route as I understand for people who are in my position. That would be to live your life as Christ’s commands (which implies belief in Christ) and that how you do that is by considering and developing your conscience in accordance with what the Church teaches which includes scripture.
I don’t think this is necessarily the only way to be saved. But for me given what I have been given it is the normal way to be saved.
As scripture says to those who are given much, much will be expected.
LikeLike
Yes, that should have read argument for the need of salvation.
So, please, continue. Explain why there is a need to be saved.
LikeLike
“Need” might be too strong a word. I suppose you don’t “need” to be saved. Happy now?
LikeLike
@trueandreasonable, moral truths are not a problem as such to evolution nor to atheism. Since you agree, that we can see how social morals has evolved in different animal species, it should not be difficult for you to see, that it is also evolving in different social groups.
Harm and benefit are only as vague as morals involved in evaluating them. Of course we can gather quite a lot of empirical knowledge and understanding of any harm and benefit. To that equation emotions must be accounted, because they are very real experiences of the human mind. They are also a very delicate mechanism of both evolutionary responses and learned intuition. The ultimate morals of any given situation is impossible to reach, because as whith any knowledge we do not know what we do not yet know and it might just change the entire conclusion, but logic dictates that we act based on the best information we have.
It is pure fantasy, that we humans have the infinite answer to any moral dilemma.This fantasy is not only represented in Christianity, but in a lot of religions and what is common to them also, is that all religions have at some point been used by a demagogue to lead people to do terrible stuff by the alledged authority of the source for ultimate morals. The older and bigger the religion, the more horrible are the results. This is not only a problem in religions but in all authoritarian ideologies. Correct? And as far as I know, no god has manifested to stop the faithfull, many of whom have acted in sincere belief in the morals of their actions. Not even to tell them they are wrong.
Christianity is a prime example of religion whith tons of tribal moralistic baggage and terrible results for people taking it as a source for the ultimate authority.
We do choose our morals according to our best understanding, or then not. The ultimate benefit factor is the situation where every part of the equation benefit greatly and the ultimate harm is the situation where every particle of the equation are damaged by the situation. Reality most often lies in between these two extreme absolutes. We evaluate the possible outcomes and choose the best outcome. As social species we are able to understand the benefit of doing the right thing on others as well as on ourselves. Simple really. However, if situational ethics does not satisfy you, it does not mean that by inventing a source for absolute morals, it turns out to be the source for absolute morals. That is to be believed, when it is proven in any practical sense to be such, not on faith. On faith anything could be true. Right?
LikeLike
“It is pure fantasy, that we humans have the infinite answer to any moral dilemma.”
I’m not sure what you mean. I know you think Christianity is wrong. But do you think we can’t answer any moral dilemma?
You speak as if science can answer these dilemmas. But I think science only helps *after* the decision is made as to what is moral. It doesn’t help us decide what ultimately is moral at all.
Some people have argued Farmers should not be able to kill their livestock. Of course currently they can lawfully do that. Is there some scientific experiment that will resolve this?
“Reality most often lies in between these two extreme absolutes.”
Why do you think reality would lie in between our absolutes of our moral feelings that evolved based on something other than finding the moral truth?
LikeLike
@Trueandreasonable. Of course any moral dilemma is answerable. But we can only answer it whithin the knowledge and undernstanding we have about the dilemma. Science is the best awailable method for us to provide knowledge and to find out what is true. Yes? It is the scientific method through which we are able to have any actual testable information and by that we get the best possible understanding of any matter.
If you make the moral judgement before you know all the facts awailable to you through the scientific method, then using science to “help” the decision is only for you to use science as an excuse for a decision you have made on less understanding, than that you could have had.
The “moral truth” may be an indipendent fact regardless of our cultural preferences, of best possible outcome to any parties involved in any way. Only way to come even close to it, is by aquiring more information, facts, data, knowledge and through them understanding of the matter. If this is not done by best scientific method, then how is it to be reached? Choosing randomly or according to our own cultural heritages some authoritarian rule system from any number of alledged supernatural sources for morals?
Your example is a good one, in the sense, that only through science can we ever be able to judge wether killing farm animals is acatually a moral act, or not. At this point of our search we can only make these decisions according to our current understanding of the matter. We could evaluate the harm vs. benefits of these actions. For example by evaluating the harm done to animals and how the knowledge of the suffering of animals causes stress, anxiety and hardening of general values in us humans as a society. We could also compare this information to the possible harm stopping farm animals from being killed would do to the individual farmers and their livelyhood and how they could be supported if the killing of animals would be stopped. We should also compare the nutrients recieved from animals and practical possibilities for other protein sources and so forth. We also should compare the possible harm and benefit of different animals being killed and so forth. It is complicated, but not too complicated for us to reach a reasonable decision. Right?
How would you go about resolving your example problem if not through researching the possible harms and benefits of this sort of human behaviour?
LikeLike
Hello rautakyy thanks for the thoughtful reply.
“Science is the best awailable method for us to provide knowledge and to find out what is true. Yes?”
Only for things within sciences purview. But anyway I tend to thnk logic and math are more certain that beliefs based on science but that is ok.
Science, logic and math can not entirely answer ultimate moral questions.
When people say that they are using science to find ultimate moral truths they are no different than the creationists who claim they are using science. In fact that are even worse. How we came to exist is at least a question that empirical information can help us answer. But whether and to what extent we should consider and animals pain versus whether it provides us nutrients or what not is not an emprical question.
“For example by evaluating the harm done to animals and how the knowledge of the suffering of animals causes stress, anxiety and hardening of general values in us humans as a society. We could also compare this information to the possible harm stopping farm animals from being killed would do to the individual farmers and their livelyhood and how they could be supported if the killing of animals would be stopped. We should also compare the nutrients recieved from animals and practical possibilities for other protein sources and so forth. We also should compare the possible harm and benefit of different animals being killed and so forth. It is complicated, but not too complicated for us to reach a reasonable decision. Right?
How would you go about resolving your example problem if not through researching the possible harms and benefits of this sort of human behaviour?”
Here is the thing. Nancy might think animals feel more pain, that killing them tends to harden our hearts more, and that the nutrients they give are less valuable than Sue. But Nancy might still think its fine for a farmer to raise and kill animals and Sue does not. In other words even if we know everything science can tell us about what actually happens in the physical world we still have moral questions that remain unanswered.
What to do about this varies and it is complicated. But science is not going to answer it. Saying there is some scientific method to find what is right and wrong is pseudo science. Hopefully we will agree we shouldn’t engage in that.
I think we go about sorting this out based on our feelings and emotions. If you are Christian your think those moral urges and feelings are put there by an all knowing God.
If you are an atheist you don’t. Most atheists tend to think they came to exist (body and mind) from evolutionary processes. But I think when you think this through this causes a major problem for the reliability of those urges and feelings.
Honestly I am not necessarily trying to convince you God exists. I am just suggesting that other views have to my mind bigger problems.
LikeLike
@ Trueandreasonable. Thank you for focusing on the issue. It is sad, how often some Christians make a runaround the actual subject, to awoid the actual topics and issues, when the questions get painfull to them as the real answers contradict the understanding of the ancient Hebrews. Especially in questions about morality.
No, it is not pseudoscience. The fact that science has not yet answered a particular question does not make the research into that question in any way pseudo-scientific. Opinions, like those of “Sue” and “Nancy” are subjective, but the “moral truth” would be the objective reality. Correct? How do we go about to find out what is objectively true? Or at least as close to it as practically possible? By scientific research, yes? If there is an objective reality, there is a way to research it in a scientific way and a way to find out about the most likeliest objective truth about the matter.
Feelings exist in the objective material reality. They are not magical, supernatural, nor otherwise unnatural. They are neurochemical processes, that affect our wellbeing. Morals is about our collective social wellbeing. It is possible to evaluate the actual benefit and harm factors of any actions and inactions and in case of cultural repeating behaviour processes we do it all the time. Do we not?
The eating of meat and consequent killing of farm animals is as good an example as any. Purely hypothetically: Would you sacrifice animals to your god, if you interpreted the Biblical laws so that your god demands that from you? What if that same god demanded, that these should be burnt offerings, so that the flesh (and nutrients) of the animals was not consumed by humans but by fire? What if the Bible claimed that serious diseases could be healed by this process? Would you trust the ancient book, or would you rather reflect your conscience and scientific research wether such a seemingly wastefull action really helped any of the sick or was it worth the pain of the animals? If it did not, would you consider the act of sacrificing animals as moral good, or as a moral hazard? What if you read about a research, that such waste in a grand scale would be a hazard to the environment and possibly to human psyche as causing antisocial reprecussions?
I constantly run into these assumptions that only mathematics and physics are actual science from the Anglo-American culture. Why is that? It seems there is some use of the word, that causes such misunderstanding as if the scientific method could not be used as reliably on other fields of research. Naturally such abstract scientific research as the mathematics produces data more easily than for example biology, or cognitive research, but the ease of the clearly interpretable data does not make it any more scientific.
Yes, as an atheist I have to say, that even if we had no clue as to where and how morality comes from, we would still not be in a position to make a claim that a god did it, because we would still have to produce reliable evidence, that such an entity even exists, or that it has communicated to us some actual information about how we should apply morals in situational ethics to furher effect beneficially on our social wellbeing. There is no evidence about any such, only wild claims taken at face value traditionally and demanded to be taken on faith, which is an anathema to any actual method of finding out the truth on any matter. But we can very well observe how social wellbeing of humans and even other animals has evolved, evolves and why. So, no mystery there and no need for even a further mystery to “explain” the first mystery.
LikeLike
BTW I replied to this it might not show up though.
LikeLike
“No, it is not pseudoscience. The fact that science has not yet answered a particular question does not make the research into that question in any way pseudo-scientific. Opinions, like those of “Sue” and “Nancy” are subjective, but the “moral truth” would be the objective reality. Correct? How do we go about to find out what is objectively true? Or at least as close to it as practically possible? By scientific research, yes? If there is an objective reality, there is a way to research it in a scientific way and a way to find out about the most likeliest objective truth about the matter.”
I don’t think its pseudo science just because science hasn’t answered the question yet. I think its pseudo science because it is a type of question that science can not answer. Science deals with empirical data. Wrongness is not something we physically see, hear, feel, smell or taste with our empirical senses. This is why science will not be able to answer these questions.
Its not true that all objective reality is necessarilly discoverable by science. We don’t know what is beyond the observable universe. There is no reason to think that it is impossible for something to exist that is not discoverable with our 5 senses.
Just consider this. Consider the possibility that we never developed sight. Say we simply managed to get around through echolocation. How much of the world would be unobservable? Would we know about different colors of light? We would be drastically limitted in our understanding of the world. Now you can say well we have sight. That’s true but its possible that we could have evolved like bats and never developed it. My point is there is no reason to think that our senses are sufficient to tell us everything about objective reality. We see it wouldn’t be from other animals that have evolved. They evolved from the same process we did. So to assume evolution gave us all the senses we need to discover everything about objective reality is an unwarranted assumption.
How we go about finding out what is objectively true with respect to morals is a very good question. As I Christian I think we should look to someone or something that is not bound by our same 5 senses. Because human beings that are so bound can not possibly answer these questions. Moral rightness and wrongness do not manifest themselves to our senses.
I argue this position in depth in my blog here. It somewhat assumes some philosophical understandings but I think you should be able to follow the gist of it.
“Feelings exist in the objective material reality. They are not magical, supernatural, nor otherwise unnatural. They are neurochemical processes, that affect our wellbeing. Morals is about our collective social wellbeing. It is possible to evaluate the actual benefit and harm factors of any actions and inactions and in case of cultural repeating behaviour processes we do it all the time. Do we not?”
You are making some questionable moves here. “Wellbeing” is ambiguous. If you mean wellbeing to mean 1) that which helps us survive, or our genes to continually be passed on, that is one thing. But if you mean 2)”wellbeing” to equal morally good then that’s another.
If you think 1 and 2 are the same then I ask, how do you know? Isn’t it obvious that evolutionary forces might have lead us to think they are the same even if they are not? You might say its obvious but I don’t think it is at all. My values have nothing to do with my passing on my genes. I would think its more obvious that human life is sacred than it is that I should pass on genes.
Harm is also ambiguous. This often happens when I talk with atheists. They use ambiguous terms like “human flourishing” “Harm” and “wellbeing.” But when it comes to explaining what exactly they mean by that their view starts to fall apart.
Do you mean harm to equal some sort of physical pain? Or do you mean harm to equal evil? Again that is the question. If you want to say evil is just physical pain that is a claim that I do not think science can answer. I do not think you will be able to provide any sort of empirical evidence to support this claim.
LikeLike
@ trueandreasonable, I’ll look up your post when I have the time. Thanks for the link, but for now I answer to what you have replied to me here.
Of course we observe “wrongness” by our senses. How else could we possibly make the distinction? No, we do not know what is beyond observable universe, that is why I used the word practical when describing what we can know about the objective truth. And as I said before, we do not know what we do not know, so any additional data might change our perspective on any issue totally. That is why what choises we make they should be limited to what is practically known and understood about the material universe. As long at least before someone can produce actual verifiable data about anything beyond the material universe.
Your analogy about eyesight is curious, because it kind of makes my point. We can not observe ultraviolet by our own senses, but science has indeed developed methods to observe it. What ever lies beyond our reach through scientific methods should be dealt whith extreme skepticism and researched whith scientific integrity before we as societies use it to make any important decisions. Correct? Or do you think the crusader, or the modern Muslim terrorist have valid cases when appealing to personal beliefs about the supernatural creator entity demanding to make war?
However, decisions are made according to the level of our current understanding of the material observable universe. A decision made on the assumptions and hypothesis about something beyond, might get lucky, but do you think that such decisions have a good chance of getting it right?
Science does not measure emotions very well, at least yet it does not, but it measures the social reprecussions and those in turn affect our wellbeing both as individuals and as members of our society. Even to the extent of global environment. If humans destroy all life on this planet, we have made a big hole in the universe void of life where there used to be some. Wellbeing is an ambiguent term, but it is as close to objective truth about morals we can get. Sorry, if it is not enough for you.
When I say wellbeing I mean wellbeing. If you are not a sociopath you should be able to understand the term and what it means collectively. And even a sociopath understands what it means subjectively. Of course it includes survival of the species, because that is a natural trait in us to promote that (one way or a nother) and get our hormonal dosages of satisfaction for furthering that cause. But it is silly to expect that we are just some sort of singleminded robots, because such simplicity would by no means further evolution.
Of course harm is also an ambiguent term, but if you want to describe morals in objective way, then there hardly is any other way than to determine it than this sociological behaviour process of morals as a way for us as social animals to try to minimize harm as it is experienced. Why on earth would you limit harm on the level of physical pain? Do you not feel you have experienced harm, if you have not experienced physical pain? What do you mean by evil? Such an ambiguent term could include the intent to do something unethical and the actual deed that could be measured to be unethical only by the actual harm it has caused.
You say life is sacred, but that is ambiguent if anything ever was. What do you mean by sacred? Is the life of your beloved more sacred to you than that of a criminal being executed on the other side of the planet? Is the life of your family more sacred than that of an enemy attacking your country? Is your life more sacred than that of a pig? Is the life of the pig more sacred than the life of any plant? What is it that makes life sacred?
LikeLike
“Of course we observe “wrongness” by our senses”
If we see wrongness, what color is it? If we hear it what does wrongness sound like?
We see actions that we think are wrong. But when people disagree about whether the same action is wrong (like a farmer slaughtering his chickens) its not like we can use a microscope and see the “wrongness” or the lack of “wrongness.”
Also where is the wrongness located? You see its a property that we think is part of reality but its not something we literally “see” because it doesn’t give off a certain light. This is ambiguous use of the word see.
“Your analogy about eyesight is curious, because it kind of makes my point. We can not observe ultraviolet by our own senses, but science has indeed developed methods to observe it. What ever lies beyond our reach through scientific methods should be dealt whith extreme skepticism and researched whith scientific integrity before we as societies use it to make any important decisions. Correct? ”
No, of course, not. Science doesn’t answer the most important questions we have. Like what should we do with our lives. You might think science will answer that one day. (I disagree.) But you will at least hopefully agree that science does not answer that today right? So how are you going to live your life? You have to make due and answer these questions as best you can even though science doesn’t provide the key.
“When I say wellbeing I mean wellbeing.”
I pointed out how that word is vague and ambiguous this does not answer that point.
“Of course it includes survival of the species, because that is a natural trait in us to promote that (one way or a nother) and get our hormonal dosages of satisfaction for furthering that cause. But it is silly to expect that we are just some sort of singleminded robots, because such simplicity would by no means further evolution.”
Furthering evolution has what to do with morality? What does furthering evolution even mean?
“You say life is sacred, but that is ambiguent if anything ever was. What do you mean by sacred? Is the life of your beloved more sacred to you than that of a criminal being executed on the other side of the planet? Is the life of your family more sacred than that of an enemy attacking your country? Is your life more sacred than that of a pig? Is the life of the pig more sacred than the life of any plant? What is it that makes life sacred?”
No I didn’t say “life is sacred” I said:
“I would think its more obvious that human life is sacred than it is that I should pass on genes.”
A pig is not a human right? So I did not say or imply a pig’s life is sacred. I think its people who drift from Christianity (or are not careful with their word choices) that say things like that.
Saying human life is sacred is not ambiguous just because there may be situations where we need to take a human life. Even in those situations where we must do that we should still be cognizant that it is sacred.
LikeLike
If you can not observe “wrongness” how do you know it is there? I can observe harm and choises that lead to harm and that is what is called “wrongness”. Simple really.
Science has pretty much answered to your question. We should choose what to do whith our lives. A nother simple answer, altough how we get to that answer might be a bit more complicated.
Morals is the social norm for human conduct. It is the result of our cognitive abilities, that are an evolutionary trait of ours as a higly cognitive social species. Nothing supernatural or otherwise unnatural there.
To further evolution means evolution is a self replicating process where producing mutations and variety for any species is to promote it’s agenda of surviving. In the case of humans as pretty much the dominant species on this planet it goes as far as taking care of the entire ecosystem for us to survive and perhaps even to move on to other planets, because we can.
Wellbeing promotes the agenda of species surviving and us humans making our individual and collective lives more tolerable. That is the morals of the case.
“…because there may be situations where we need to take a human life. Even in those situations where we must do that we should still be cognizant that it is sacred.”
If that is your definition of life being sacred, then we are in agreement about it. 🙂 Exept that it is equally ambigious as the term wellbeing, if not even more so. Sometimes we just have to do whith the ambiquity of terminology.
LikeLike
Kyy,
It is obvious that your version of morality happening all by itself simply doesn’t exist in the real world.
Take a look at the un-Christianized world, China and Africa for example.
Human life has less value than a bucket of warm spit in those areas.
And if China had not adopted capitalism (the economic system developed in the Christian West, that can create unlimited wealth) there would have been mass starvation there just like India, before the Indians adopted the ways of the Christian West.
And even Christian Europe had to burn itself out in two world wars before it was pacified and rebuilt by the Christian United States.
The civilization and morals that you love so much are a result of the Gospel of Jesus Christ finally taking hold among men.
The idea that morals developed through evolution or all by themselves is simply preposterous.
LikeLike
“If you can not observe “wrongness” how do you know it is there?”
I get a feeling its wrong. I think that feeling is tied with reality because I think an omnipotent being had something to do with my creation including those feelings. The question is why would someone who thought they evolved think those feelings have anything to do with reality.
“Science has pretty much answered to your question. We should choose what to do whith our lives.”
I agree we should choose what to do with our lives. I don’t think science gave that answer though. But Science doesn’t say what we should choose. IMO that would be pseudo science.
“Wellbeing promotes the agenda of species surviving and us humans making our individual and collective lives more tolerable. That is the morals of the case.”
“Wellbeing” is very vague. As is saying we should make our lives “more tolerable.” But if you mean wellbeing in a moral sense. That is existing well in a moral sense, passing on my genes is not very important at all. As far as the continuation of the species if everyone decided they were not going to have children that would be ok, but there would still be ways they could live a good moral life.
LikeLike
@ silenceofmind, Africa is very much Christianized and capitalized by Christian conquerors who have extorted the continent from it’s resources for generations.
India has had the benefit of enjoying capitalism for a couple of hundred years and where is it now? Capitalism alone does by no means produce unlimited wealth unless you mean a very few filthy rich people, because unlimited in itself is a bit of an oxymoron in conjunction to wealth.
Europe was lead by Christian authoritarianism for centuries and all they could develope was feodalism. Finally their internal religious wars led to the realization of the importance of a secular state indipendend from religious authority. The US was very much founded on that realization. That violence between the adherents of Christianity is pretty much the only connection between modern western social morals and the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
Jesus alledgedly said, that one should treat other people like one expects to be treated by her/himself. That was quite wise of him, altough not a very novel ideal even in his time. It was written by numerous philosophers already before and after him and no wonder. It is the most simple and obvious content of any morals. When a rat bites back at a nother rat, that has bitten it first, it is the necessity of this very logic, that the rat biting back is reminding the other rat of. Jesus is also reported to have said, that one should sell all ones property and give the money to the congregation. How many Christians have ever followed that “morals”? How does that divine command fit in whith capitalism?
Secular humanism has produced the moral ideals like human rights and democratic societies, that make the western world actually generally better to live in than it’s former (and capitalistically present day) colonies. These ideals are now pretty much recognized globally, though much remains to be done for them to take hold in reality.
Human rights in general are in a better shape in countries that have been on the recieving end of colonial and capitalistic extortion. Which only tells us that wellbeing is easier to share when there is something other than misery to share.
Even if we did not know, where morals came from, we could not posit any particular god to have achieved them. Not before we had demonstrated that such a god even exists. Personal testimonies of any particular god appearing to people are as accurate source of information as personal testimonies of people having been abducted by aliens. Are they not?
I have never before met an atheist troll, but by going directly at the weak points of any Christian argumentation, you are making me very suspicious, that I finally have run into one – namely you? Are you infact also a socialist troll?
LikeLike
Sorry Kyy but the Europeans left Africa decades ago and since then the place has been submerged in disease, starvation and genocide.
Don’t you read or listen to the news?
Oh yeah, you probably get your news from CNN and MSLSD. That explains it.
LikeLike
@Trueandreasonable. Feelings are very much indicative of reality, but naturally as natural traits they can also decieve us. Yes? Our natural needs and cultural heritage cause us to “feel” certain ways about the reality around us. The link between feelings and evolutionary processes are quite observable. Fear for example, is one of the most primitive reactions to promote the survival of an individual organism. Correct? But as cognitive beings we humans may rise above our most primitive reactions. As we have the ability to evaluate the consequenses of our actions further than most other life forms on this planet, that ability provides us whith better judgement of situations. That judgement is our morals both individual and collective. Science comes in only as the provider of the best possible data about the reality. Morals is a social norm that helps us to asses situations. Our best assesment is based on the best possible information we have. Do you see what I mean?
Supernatural, or otherwise unnatural imaginary entities should not play any roles in such assesments. Not until they are actually proven in any PRACTICAL sense to have any direct effect on the reality. Sometimes they do have indirect effects, like for example when people believe such entities exist and by their supreme authority these humans make moral judgement on any issues. Sometimes these imaginary entities (like Krishna, Allah, or Jesus) are part of cultural heritage that follows rather natural and obvious lines of social morals, like for example when they tell people to act in ways that further the general human wellbeing, but on other occasions all of them (even Buddha) have also been used to promote ideals that do not add to the common human wellbeing. In effect they are used for immoral causes (like the Crusades for example) that did not further general human wellbeing. Agreed?
Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma?
You say that wellbeing is a vague term, but what are you comparing it to? Divine commands in some particular “holy” book? Admit it, that such books are very vague indeed, unless you would see slavery for example as a beneficial trait to increase human wellbeing. Would you? Is it vague to say, that having natural needs fulfilled is preferable to being tortured? To me wellbeing is an obvious matter and not so vague at all. Compassion is a very natural emotion for a member of social species like us humans. Correct? It is very much indicative of the reality, that we social animals are better equipped in the survival of the fittest by the support of our likes. Yes? Our hormonal responses for showing compassion activate our emotional pleasure and our failure to comply compassionately equally release a remorsive feelings, unless we are sociologically damaged at some earlier point of our lives.
Have you ever noticed, that modern day religious people either tend to have higher moral standards than the divine commands alledgedly directly given by these divine characters, or then they are following some terrible ancient tribal moralistic ideal taken directly from these books, like Sharia law, or the Westboro Babtists about homosexuality?
Yes, we could all decide not to have more children and still live moral lives at least if we cleaned up the mess human kind would otherwise leave behind. And no, that would not promote the species. But that would require for us all to decide on such a path, and the drive for us to procreate is a rather strong incentive. Is it not? Then in PRACTICE for such a situation to happen it would require for us to snuff out that incentive alltogether. For some of us to be forced into the decision by mental or physical violence. Right? That would no longer be moral, would it? Not unless our extinction would serve some very real higher purpose. And again then that would be the natural moral of the decision.
@Silenceofmind. I get my news mainly from YLE, Reuters and the BBC. How about you? The FOX I presume, or is it ITAR/TASS?
The European colonialists have left Africa, but Christianity remains and causes death by preventing the fight against AIDS. It also plays a part in population explotion, that causes powerty and environmental disasters, that in turn multiply the effects of powerty. Multinational western corporations also remain and continue the extortion. Did you not know these facts?
LikeLike
KYY,
I get my news from all over the place.
When I want leftist propaganda I am sure to tune into the BCC and Reuters.
LikeLike
@trueandreasonable, since your post that you linked me to does not accept a comment from me, I will reply here in short… Well, shortish.
I agree whith you in that the evolution in itself is blind to many truths. It maily affects the truths about the direct environment of any species. Evolution has not caused a fish to survive in the void, even though it might be a very good survival mechanism for the species of fish to transfere it’s genes to other planets. But because recognizing true information from false information is one rather effective survival mechanism, we humans have evolved rather high cognitive abilities to do so. These cognitive abilities have provided us also whith an effective method to evaluate the results of our actions and inaction. To be responsible for our actions and inactions, yes? That responsibility we collectively call morals. Our perception of higher morals is based on the information we are able to gather on how and what are we responsible for. Our social wellbeing makes us responsible for each other and through compassion we may feel a responsibility towards other life forms or even inanimate objects. Was it right or wrong to destroy the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad? Was it merely an event to an inanimate object that happened, or was it actually something, that meant something significant to the people involved? Is there a “holy” scripture, that prescribed this particular statue to be destroyed and what if there is?
Your analogy about the mouse fails because the morals of the mouse suffering is more about the reprecussions of the suffering to the human individuals of your example. One of them is hardened by the fact that she feels a real need to get rid of the mouse by any means and the other has emotional distress and stress by her compassion for the mouse. As I have explained abowe, compassion (even for other species as we are highly social species, that even makes alliances whith other species as a succesfull survival strategy) is very natural and it has very direct effect on the human wellbeing. The hardening one of these individuals in your example went through when evaluating the suffering of the mouse in comparrison to the necessity of killing it, might be harmfull to her, because at least if repeated often, the effect may have reprecussions even in her human relations. Her taking the responsibility for the mouse suffering might cause her to further lower her standards about the use of violence in general. So, there are direct effects for the mouse suffering to human moral behaviour. Recognition of the natural compassion we may feel for the mouse – even if only to recognize it’s suffering though we are going to kill it anyway – has effects on human condition and our wellbeing.
We can never know the absolute truth of the morals for killing the mouse is, but in PRACTISE if Sophia recognizes the anxiety of Leslie for her compassion for the mouse suffering, that is information that might tell Sophia to spare the mouse and her friend from unnecessary suffering. She is then also sparing herself from unnecessary hardening of her compassionate feelings and furthering the natural cause of human wellbeing (as well as mice). What science tells us about the mouse suffering is only important in the way of knowledge, that it is the most reliable source for the knowledge, that the mouse suffers indeed, regardless wether we would have wanted it to suffer or not. Science also can provide us whith the sociological picture of the issue. Science is the best way to know wether violence against animals causes stress to humans and what are the social reprecussions of such stress. Correct?
Besides what would you suggest is the best way to get any closer of the absolute morals of such an issue? Is there a divine command scripture, that tells us wether killing mice fast or slow is moral? No?
Most moral choises we make are intuitional, but intuition does not come from nothing. It is the sum of our previous experiences. It is our choises, such as torturing a mouse unnecessarily when killing it, that make up our individual intuitions. The better the information we base our choises, the better our intuition and higher our morals. Simple really?
@silenceofmind, if you think the BBC is “leftist propaganda”, then who provides you whith objective news?
LikeLike
Kyy,
There isn’t one source of objective news.
Because there is no standard of truth in journalism one must analyze stories to see if they are pushing agendas, based on logical fallacies or simply peddling falsehood.
I gave up on the BCC a long, long time ago.
LikeLike
Rautakyy
Thans for your response.
Your response didn’t post? What was the issue?
In the mouse example you make allot of statements of what you think is right and wrong. But really you are just giving your own feelings. You can not literally see the wrongness so that you can point to it and say therefore Leslie’s view is true. Nor can you point to the rightness and say therefore Sophia’s view is the true one.
You are not fully recognizing that evolution does not care about things that do not have material – empirical manifestations. Therefore our feelings about morals would have no reason to coorespond with truth.
Sure our beliefs about things that do have material manifestations will be shaped based on truth. But when we see a mouse died in a sticky trap we just see the fact of the dead mouse from the trap. We do not literally see anything that tells us it is right or it is wrong. We just like you say rely on our feelings. But evolution has no interest in making these feelings conform with reality because moral reality doesn’t have a physical effect on us.
Both Leslie and Sophia can fully understand all the science there is to know about how a mouse experiences pain in a trap and still disagree about the morality.
LikeLike
@silenceofmind. I agree that no agency gives out purely objective news, my choise of words was poor. Of course there are no objective news agencies, just as there is no absolute knowledge about anything. Though I must confess that I was not sure you understood this.
What I meant in practice, was what news agency, in your view, gives most neutral covering and least propaganda? As we allready established you have reservations about certain agencies, I do not think it is necessary to go through those again and again. Unless you have something to add.
I too evaluate the truth value of any news whith much the same methods you describe, but I do not only make a record of the unreliable news agencies, but I also make a note of which news agencies, in my experience, have given most reliable information and fair coveridge.
In my view the BBC is a bit conservative and sometimes burdened whith the old superpower hangover. YLE here in Finland has a pretty good record, because it is indipendend of investors ideals and because it mirrors the neutrality principle of our our foreign politics.
LikeLike
I am not doing much today Violet and I must say, you post such intriguing and well written posts. I love that purple flower shot. Is it a lily?
Anyways, because I am not doing much today I am taking the time to do some on-screen reading – not something I usually do but I just feel like it today. I must say, some of the comments are hilarious. 😆
You will find I don’t usually say anything so please take my ‘likes’ as notification that I did read, that I did like it, that I think and always will think that you are an excellent writer and blogger but I don’t really have an opinion or anything that would matter. I’ll stick to reading and ‘liking’ if you don’t mind. 😀
Maybe a quote now and then would do. 😀
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. – Friedrich Nietzsche
LikeLike
Sonel,
Men like Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx peddled philosophy that is so easily proven absurd that it’s amazing that modern people don’t laugh them to scorn.
Here is Christian morality:
“Love thy neighbor.”
Here is Christian religion:
“Loving thy neighbor is like loving God.”
Christian morality and religion lead to civil society.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy leads to genocide and the gas chambers.
As human beings we get to choose between civilization and mass murder.
The obvious choice for all of mankind is Christianity.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input SOM. I am not religious at all and like everyone else you are entitled to your own opinion and beliefs. I don’t have to agree with it. Have a nice day. 🙂
LikeLike
Sonel,
It’s amazing that I can explain the horrid facts about a horrid philosophy like the one espoused by Friedrich Nietzsche, and you blithely proclaim that the horrid facts are simply an opinion.
Such is the absurdity of atheism.
People who believe everything happened all by itself, will believe anything, the more horrid the more believable.
LikeLike
@Silenceofmind, Christian morals have not led to civil society in almost 2000 years yet. Rather a lacking achievement from a god, would you not say?
Not very many atheists are fans of Nietzche, altough theists often demand, that they should be. Why is this? Is Nietzche just a convinient strawman?
It is nice that you find those things like love as your personal moral guides from the Bible, but a lot of Christians throughout the centuries have also found a lot of ugly stuff from the very same book, and as far as I know no gods have appeared to set them to understand the book your way.
Christian morality leads to gas chambers and mass murder. Hitler himself said he thought he was on a mission from your god, and wether if he was, or even really thought so, does not matter, because by saying so, he could convince millions of sincere German Christians (both Catholics and Lutherans) to make the gass chambers a reality. We are not talking about the fans of Nietzche, but the common Nazi who acted according to their anti-semitic religious cultural heritage, taken into extremes by learned behaviour to trust in absolute authoritarianism.
LikeLike
Kyy,
Christian morals and ethics are the light of the world.
They are at the core of the greatest civilization in human history, the civilization that atheists love so much and think happened all by itself.
LikeLike
@silenceofmind. What civilization are you referring to? Are there Christian ethics in the core of Chinese civilization, or Indian, or Persian, or Egyptian? Are these not the greatest according to longevity? Or if you would rather something else as the method of measuring greatness between civilizations? How about human rights, that are a totally secular humanist ideal?
Now I see how your perspective on atheism is so flawed. Has nobody ever told you that atheist do not think civilizations appear all by themselves? How? Like from thin air by supernatural powers, or something? What a childish idea? As far as I know most atheists consider civilizations a natural phenomenon in the natural material universe appearing by biological agency – such as humans. How else would a civilization appear? Who told you atheists think civilizations happen all by themselves? I am a bit inclined to advice you not trust that fellow, because it seems he/she either lies or does not know what she/he is talking about. However, most propably, according to your interpretation of the subject, you have just misunderstood her/him.
LikeLike
kyy,
The Chinese, Persian, Egyptian civilizations all rose up around religion.
Western Civilization is the greatest civilization in history because Christianity is the best religion.
LikeLike
Yes, all those civilizations had their own religions. You do not believe their religions represent reality very well do you? Did they rise around religions is a nother matter all together. The fact that their cultures had religion only reveals how ignorant they were in the beginning of their cultural paths. Right?
A bit of a circular logic you have there about the western civilization, don’t you?
Are you an atheist troll?
LikeLike
Kyy,
Christianity is the greatest religion because it, along with Judaism are the only one’s revealed by God, himself.
Nevertheless, religion unifies a culture and puts man where he belongs, under God.
The blessing of proper order is civilization.
In history, there has never been an atheist civilization.
That is because atheism spells the end of civilization.
You people are the prophets of doom.
LikeLike
Poor Raut. Stop wasting his precious time, and start explaining how you Christians can claim that your god came from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. You people are so illogical.
LikeLike
Wisp,
God cannot come from nothing because he is uncreated.
Atheists don’t have the mental capacity to understand that simple concept.
I don’t say that to be insulting.
It’s just a simple fact.
If you could somehow coax your mind into imagining beyond time and space then you would be able to reason your way to the simple fact that God exists.
LikeLike
Perhaps in the same way that whatever natural force initiated the big bang simply exists? I hope you have the mental capacity to understand that. 😀
LikeLike
Wisp,
The First Cause, the force that initiated the Big Bang, is God.
And by definition of the word, “first,” there can exist no other causes.
That means the First Cause is uncaused, therefore uncreated.
I know this type of reasoning means absolutely nothing to you.
That’s because atheism is not based on reason, but 100% faith.
LikeLike
“The First Cause, the force that initiated the Big Bang, is God.” How do you know? It doesn’t say that in the Bible. Why would the god God have lied about how the universe came into existence? It’s much more logical to assume something natural caused it.
LikeLike
Wisp,
The First Cause is uncreated, or uncaused because, by definition of the word, “first” there exist no other preceding causes.
One of the attributes of God is that he is uncreated.
He is uncreated because he exists before time and space were created.
That leads necessarily to another attribute of God which is that he is eternal.
The universe cannot be eternal because time and space are not eternal.
Though we can reason that out, it has been proven by modern science.
Modern science, in fact, brings us to the God’s doorstep.
But that is no coinkydink since modern science was made possible by the Christian worldview.
LikeLike
I guess so. But I’m still left wondering how something came out of nothing.
LikeLike
Wisp,
And therein is the proof that atheists suffer from insufficient intellect to reason out the simple.
I explained it to as simply and simple can be and yet you have no idea what I just told you.
Just think about it, is all I can recommend.
The idea that God came out of nothing is ridiculous, yet the ridiculous is an insurmountable wall for you.
LikeLike
So it seems. But thanks for taking time to explain it.
LikeLike
Wisp,
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that without God, the atheist is left being the god of his or her own private universe.
That means atheist thinking is chained to the very small realm of personal bias (subjectivity).
Such a condition has plagued mankind his entire existence.
And this is why Judeo-Christian and the rest of the Western Heritage are so very important.
They establish a tradition of thought and a worldview that seeks to overcomes personal bias with the universal language of reason and an objective reality created by the one true God.
LikeLike
What about Islam?
LikeLike
iSLAM teaches the one the true God of Abraham.
But iSLAM only has one man, Mohamed, as a witness to himself. Therefore, iSLAM is a religion revealed by man, not God.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews and Egyptians witnessed God during the time of Moses and thousands of people from all over Europe, Africa and the Near East witnessed Jesus.
LikeLike
@Silenceofmind, I agree no atheist civilizations have ever existed. And yet, no civilizations using antibiotics had existed just a couple of hundred years ago. Atheism is the cure to the sociological ailment of religiousness. The world is changing. How do you think atheism causes the end of civilizations?
You believe that your religion, that just happens to be your cultural heritage (lucky you), is the “greatest” religion because the divinities in your religion have more anecdotal wittness accounts than some other religion? Do you also believe in the UFO stories? There are literally thousands of alledged UFO abductees around the globe. Anecdotal stories about what people believe to have seen is a flimsy piece of evidence in such a big issue.
If there actually was evidence for your god, why would your god demand faith? The demand for faith contradicts all possible rational evaluation of the alledged evidence.
LikeLike
Kyy,
Antibiotics are a product of modern science.
Modern science was only developed in Christian Western Civilization.
LikeLike
@silenceofmind, no, no. Antibiotics were developed in the secular western civilization. Christianity played no role in their development. Did it? Atheism also comes from the secular western civilization. Does it not? Secular western civilization is the result of religious wars between Christian sects. Christianity is a socio-cultural rudiment in the western secular civilization. Do you see?
LikeLike
Here is Christian morality:
Stone your children if they don’t obey you.
Here is Christian religion:
Abandon all your possessions to follow Jesus (only 0.0001% of self-identified Christians manage to do this)
LikeLike
Wisp,
Name one Christian who ever stoned his children.
You atheists have to go back thousands of years to primitive, ancient cultures in order to make your nightmares come true.
Yet you are completely oblivious to the fact that atheists are responsible for the worst mass murders in human history and they happed less than a century ago.
What’s wrong with you people?
Modern, Christian civilization, the one atheists love so much, didn’t just happen all by itself.
It took almost 5000 years to develop.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a real Christian. So when did you abandon all your possessions?
LikeLike
Wisp,
What do my possession have to do with your hateful, bigoted claim that Christians stone their children?
Again I ask, “What’s wrong with you?”
LikeLike
Apologies, does it not say that somewhere in your Holy Book? Perhaps I misread it.
LikeLike
Wisp,
Not only do atheists misread the Bible, they intentionally redefine it to conform to whatever bout of hatred their talking points commanded them to puke out that day.
LikeLike
What did I misread here?
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. — Deuteronomy 21:18-21
LikeLike
Wisp,
Deuteronomy is over 3500 years ago.
God, through is Son, Jesus Christ, has lead the human race to bigger and better things.
You have to be positively desperate and hateful to have to go back over 2500 years to blame Christians for what happened in a culture far, far, away, and long, long ago.
LikeLike
Thanks SOM, that makes perfect sense. The Old Testament is irrelevant. I always thought as much.
LikeLike
Wisp,
Who said the Old Testament was irrelevant?
That’s just another one of your intentional hateful distortions.
Why all the hate?
LikeLike
Sorry SOM, I find it terribly distressing that just when I think we’ve agreed on something, I find I’ve insulted you. Lo siento mi amigo. 😀
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by and leaving such a nice comment Sonel. The flower above is just a crocus but the colours came out quite vividly for some reason. Quotes are welcome, especially if they stir SOM to share some of his wisdom. 😀
LikeLike
You are very welcome Violet. That is one stunning shot for sure and it must have known you singled it out and decided to show off for a bit. Nature is so amazing. 😀
Glad you enjoyed the quote and it’s my pleasure. I don’t mind wisdom, just as long as it makes sense and it’s something I choose to believe. 😛
LikeLike
PS: Thanks for the lovely comments on Ark’s post and for being so kind. I didn’t want to comment there because as far as I am concerned it’s over and done with but just wanted to let you know I appreciate what you tried to do. Much appreciated hon. 😀 ♥ Hugs ♥
LikeLike
You’re welcome. Hope you kick Ark in private for being so spineless and keeping quiet. 😈
LikeLike
Whahahahah! Who said I haven’t already?
Nah! Would never to that. Besides, I will only hurt my foot. 😆 I do think he handled the situation very well with the post after that and I appreciate it. Very subtle indeed and I will never expect him to take sides. 😀
LikeLike
Mrgreen? That’s a new one to me! Where do you find these secret emoticons?
LikeLike
🙄 Right here: http://jannekevandorpe.com/2014/03/19/secret-new-wordpress-smileys/
🍸
LikeLike
You do realise I am a ‘Googlist’ don’t you? 😎
hahahahahaha!
LikeLike
These are great, thank you! ⭐
LikeLike
You’re very welcome hon. Have fun. 😀
LikeLike