Polycarp - thank you for responding to my question in such a full and frank manner…
While I accept and understand your response, I think that the core issue that I was really asking about is - How should those who have discovered and understood the absolute morality that you try and live by, reflect that morality to the rest of the world? Does one who knows the true morality have the responsibility/duty to tell the world about it, or should they just try and live a holy life and hope that people notice and change? How can one live a moral life that does not condemn the evil that others do? How does one condemn the evil without ceasing to love the person that has commited the evil?
Certainly Jesus pulled no punches with the religious leaders of the day, who he saw as leading people away from God rather than towards Him. “Vipers” and “snakes” are some of his choice epithets… Much of his teaching was on moral issues (divorce and adultery for example) and he was fairly clear about the standards that he expected (or that God expected).
What do you mean by morality? Are we referring to a specific code that tells us what to do in all situations? If so then, frankly, I’d be surprised if any of us even has a personal morality that is complete. A favorite game of threads like this is the construction of examples that are morally uncertain. If you or I don’t even have a complete moral system for ourselves, then the construction of an absolute morality that would be universally applicable seems far, far out of reach. Remember - life is like a box of chocolates: some bastard always nicks the cream cups before you can get there.
Then we have Goedel: should we manage to derive a set of totally consistent moral decision-makers, it won’t be complete. If we want it to be complete, it won’t be totally consistent.
And quite aside from this: from an epistimological point of view (you knew someone was going to mention that word eventually), how the hell do we even evaluate moral systems against eachother? In the absense of God or any other axiom as a basis, what tells us that even a watertight “DUO” is better than “When in doubt, give kabbes all your money and jump off a cliff”? Sure, we can borrow from economics and use a concept of “utility”, but it is then axiomatic to say that the maximising of utility is “best”.
stupid question:
Where do atheist get their morals? Do they believe we are just animals adopting rules to allow us to live in close proximity? What stops one animal from taking something from another animal?
Justinh, I doubt you’ll find any universal consensus among atheists on this issue. My own view is that certain norms are objective features of the universe, and that moral codes (when correct) are, or are derived from, these norms. Other atheists may take certain naturalistic features (e.g., absence of harm, promotion of general welfare, conformity with the categorical imperative, etc.) to be analytically constitutive of morality. Others may take moral codes to be evolutionarily-adaptive behavioural patterns which tend to promote overall species survival. Others may follow a broadly Humean route and take moral statements to be non-assertoric expressions of personal or cultural preference. Others will be frankly nihilistic about morality. And I’m sure there are more positions I haven’t covered here.
TheRyan: Yes, suicide would be the appropriate response in a very restricted realm of possibilities where one’s suicide (or, more precisely, giving of one’s life through another’s agency) would conduce to the greater loving of others as of self. I’d cite an example, but it seems implicit in my words, remembering that I am a Christian.
Grimpixie:
Well, in my experience, the latter seems to be the more effective means of getting the job done. One standard for the evaluation of any person presuming to teach anything regarding how to live is, “Does he practice what he preaches?”
One can draw their attention to the evil consequences of their actions, in love, or speak out when they conceive of their motives as good. Or one can simply “be a light that shines in darkness” and assume that the light will eventually overcome the darkness. It does tend to work, in the long run, as you’ll note if you observe history. Few people here will recall the name of the man who assassinated Gandhi, to avoid yet another Christian example, but his own name lives on.
Have you ever had occasion to discipline a child whom you loved? If so, you know the answer already.
Unfortunately, I am not a parent, so cannot relate to this one… I think a better way to phrase the question might have been: “How does one condemn the evil without the person that has commited the evil ceasing to feel loved?”
Thank you again for taking the time to address these questions - much appreciated!!
Very interesting reading here. I’d like to get some thoughts, if anyone is interested, in my system of morals. I tend to base my moral decisions on the Wiccan Rede, which is (in the most shortened version) “Harm none”. This is, to my mind, a slightly different way of phrasing the Golden Rule.
While it is often very simply interpreted, I tend to take a stricter look at it. For my personal purposes, “Harm” includes emotional suffering as well as physical damage or pain. It also includes causing any harm that may be unknown, or allowing any harm that could be alleviated.
An example of that would be driving by the site of a traffic accident, seeing a girl sitting on the curb and crying. If you are capable of rendering help and choose not to do so, you are causing harm. Help, in this instance, may include medical assistance if you are so qualified, calling for emergency vehicles, or simply giving the girl someone to cry on while she waits for the ambulance to arrive. If you continue to drive by, the fact that she did not see you does not mean that you did no harm.
Also, in stating “Harm none”, “none” includes yourself as well as others.
This system is extremely subjective, and requires me to examine each situation. I’ve also found it next to impossible to acheive completely; often the realistic choices are either harming fewer people, or causing less harm. Very few actions in our lives harm none.
I’d appreciate comments or questions. Every examination of this system helps me to refine it.
It would seem, seawitch, to rule out the possibility of serving on juries - after all, participating in a process that will lock someone up against his will is harm.
Of course, you may well argue that harm isn’t your intent – that you protecting potential future victims. But then “harm none” becomes, in my view, an insufficient yardstick, since you’re really harming one to help another, engaging in a balancing test of competing harms and choosing the lesser.
“Harm least” might be a more accurate description, eh?
It’s still inherently subjective, and this thread was exploring an objective moral code.
As a practical application, yep, that is a more accurate description. It doesn’t preclude jury service any more than “judge not, lest ye be judged” precludes jury service. I strive for truly harming none, but I’m only human. Drat.
Fair enough. It seems, however, that the earlier moral codes explained were subjective as well. As a matter of fact, it was your Hillel quote that inspired my post; think of it as “despicable=harm”, and the two methods are not that far apart in spirit.
I would classify despicable behaviour as harmful. I also think that failing to treat my fellow man with love (as in Polycarp’s earlier posts) is harmful. Admittedly, I am using a wi-i-i-i-de definition of “harm”; however, I feel that I am following a stronger moral code in doing so.
Given the variables inherent in human communication and interpretation, I have a hard time seeing how anything is truly objective. (Could be my subjective understanding, though. ;))
