Political Compass #52: You cannot be moral without being religious.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below, not just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated), and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.
#40: One party states avoid delays to progress.
#41: Only wrongdoers need worry about official surveillance.
#42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes.
#43: Society must have people above to be obeyed.
#44: Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything isn’t art at all.
#45: Punishment is more important than rehabilitation.
#46: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
#47: Businessmen are more important than writers and artists.
#48: A mother’s first duty is to be a homemaker.
#49: Companies exploit the Third World’s plant genetic resources.
#50: Mature people make peace with the establishment.
#51: Astrology accurately explains many things.

[/size]

Proposition #52: You cannot be moral without being religious. (Formerly: “Religion and morality are closely linked.”)

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.

How quaintly exclusive!

There are all kinds of alternatives for the atheistic or non-religious. My own preference is that of negative utilitarianism, wherein “goodness” is defined solely by actions and their consequences. If an action causes suffering (as defined according to, say, a medical metric), it is bad. If it ameliorates that suffering, overall, it is good, with prior intent to do harm ultimately making actual harm vastly more probable. Morality is thus linked solely to the minimisation of suffering, with not a whiff of religious incense about it (and noting that whether “suffering” can be gauged accurately is rather irrelevant to this particular discussion).

Indeed, religions (or at least, some of the religious) often seem to me to have something of a problem understanding atheistic formulations of morality. One curious argument I have heard is that unless you ascribe to a religious version of morality, then you simply cannot criticise logical inconsistencies therein, such as the problem of evil. Suffice it to say, this is rather like saying that only Flat-Earthers can point out the inconsistencies manifested in lunar eclipses and tall-masted ships sailing over the horizon, or other logical inconsistencies associated with a flat Earth!

Another contention I find somewhat strange is that “atoms have no morality, and so morality cannot exist in a reality made solely of atoms”. Again, atoms have no economics, biology or climate either, and yet we would not say that a poor man in a rainstorm cannot exist in a universe without gods: things like life and the weather are what emerges from complex arrangements of atoms. Yet another argument is that since such atheistic formulations of morality are essentially subjective and internal, they are useless. And yet proposing an external, objective “absolute good” by appealing to a supernatural imaginary-friend-for-grownups is not! As they say in the US, “go figure”.

#52 is a misapprehension commonly found amongst the “religious”: that, as soon as one contends that the universe and everything in it including human thought might ultimately be explained by the physical (or, at least, the non-theistic), morality goes out the window. There are clearly actions that I consider bad. Just because I explain the definition with reference to neuropsychology or pain receptors does not make it any less “moral” by nature. Atheists do not necessarily believe that “evil” does not exist, merely that it is a linguistic descriptor of a range of physical human actions, just as “blue” is a descriptor of a range of physical wavelengths.

2

Disagree so strongly that I’d almost say “You cannot be moral if you ARE religious.”

I said almost.

(I forget what my coordinates are. Sorry.)

3

Mangetout (-4.75, -3.38 and religious to boot, although liberally so) Ticks Strongly Disagree.

This one scares me at times because so very often, it is used to imply that the only possible source of human morality is external, but the counterimplication (that is so often ignored) is that, if the only thing restraining theists from immorality is God and his Big Stick, doesn’t that mean the theists are really just psychopaths?
Seriously, if a person can’t think of a better (or at least another) reason to refrain from, say, brutal murder than ‘God doesn’t want me to’, I’d worry about letting them walk the streets.

4

Divine Command morality is just nihilism by another name. Strongly Disagree.

5

Agree. (7, -1,15)

Perhaps this is a matter of definition, but I don’t think morality exist outside religion. Morality lies in the area of “why” that logic and science don’t enter. People and their actions might be stupid or unwise but nothing is really wrong in a moral sense, because there is no outside force (what you prefer, somewhat condescendingly, to term: “a supernatural imaginary-friend-for-grownups”) to determine what is right and wrong.

SM, I think you cheat in your argumentation by saying evil can be described as a mere “linguistic descriptor of a range of physical human actions” because this has nothing to do with the definition one would (well I would) normally have of “evil”, you merely twist the word to mean something else and then conclude: “yup! We got that too”. Likewise, there is nothing moral (or immoral) in having a society wherein goodness is defined solely by actions and consequences, just as there is no morality in creating a finely tuned machine optimised to perform ideally. Common sense does not equal morality.

6

Does, say, “blue” reside in that area also?

Why do definitions need an external, determining “force”? Can I not call blue “blue” without appealing to such an external force?

Well, apologies for trying to make my atheistic worldview consistent! I’m a little surprised you’re surprised given what you know about my view of free will.

I’m also a little surprised that you are religious, Rune: that’s not any kind of impugnment, of course, I just can’t remember you admitting so in the past.

We are finely tuned machines. Why cannot machines have a morality based on consequences?

Or, indeed, anything, since whatever ‘sense’ one person finds ‘common’, another might consider exceedingly rare.

7

Although I answer strongly disagree (sorry, forgot my scores), in some sense I agree with Rune. Let me explain – the answer I choose for the test is based on my perception of the common meaning of “moral”. However, I personally make a distinction between “morals” and “ethics” – one that I believe is not common (and may not agree with others’ definitions). In essence, I consider “morals” to be universal absolutes (generally handed down by a “supreme being”, although for my purposes, not necessarily), of the “Thou shalt not kill” ilk. “Ethics”, on the other hand, are constructions, generally much fuzzier and subjective (e.g., utilitarianism). Otherwise, I have a difficult time distinguishing between the two, as do others with whom I’ve discussed it.

8

Blue teaches blue. /F. Herbert

Whether you personally believe if e.g. life has a meaning or the universe a reason makes no difference to the fact that those questions cannot be answered by science.

Because, for me, the definition covers something actual, an objective truth, not a mere social construct or individual impression. Without an outside force, one cannot escape an endless regression of “why”’s. Something is morally wrong or right, regardless of whether you or I or the person doing it believe it so or not or the society has decided to define it so.

I’m not surprised at your opinion on morality. I’m a little surprised that you considered it necessary to express it with such scorn at people who thinks otherwise, let alone base your whole worldview on it. That’s pretty sad.

I’m not religious in any sane definition of the word, but I consider religion a valid position, also from a logical point, and not one I need disparage or feel superior to. But were I religious, you wouldn’t find me “admitting” to it either.

Because morality lies outside the individual. If I bang my daughters’ head in with a baseball bat, she dies and I go to jail. That’s a mere consequence and speaks nothing of the moral aspects of the action.

Ahh yes. But what I was trying to say, was that just because a thing is wise or efficient doesn’t mean it is also good. It might be wise of me not to kill random people on the street because that would land me many years behind bars with a 300 pound man called Bob, and it might be wise and efficient of us all to create a society where such is strongly penalised, because anything else would land us in anarchy to the detriment of us all. Neither of those reasons have anything to do with morality.

9

My question is: if “evil” is just a “linguistic descriptor of a range of physical human actions”, then what makes it something to avoid?
I guess, from a utilitarian point of view, we have to set up a society where people believe that some actions are bad and some actions are good, for the society to be able to function properly.

So, once society has described some actions as “evil”, from a utilitarian point of view, I should not commit “evil” acts because of practical consequences to myself (I’ll get arrested and/or ostracized by my friends).

But, if I am in a situation where I can do an “evil” action (that benefits me) in such a way that nobody will ever find out, what thought process stops me from committing this act? From a utilitatian point of view, I think it is almost imperative to commit this “evil” act, since it benefits me and there will be zero negative consequences.

I think the nice trick with religion is that it removes the latter possibility by saying that “you will never be in a situation where nobody will find out your evil acts. God is always watching”

10

Blue is electromagnetic radiation of wavelength between 460-480 nm. /Me

Other people might call 455nm or 485nm “blue”. I’d call them “violet” and “green”. Other people might call “immoral or bad” certain actions that I call “moral or good”, and vice versa.

Who mentioned science? I am speaking of a nonreligious basis for morality.

You believe morality or good is a real thing, like a snowflake or a supernova, or the colour blue? Me too.

God does not stop the "why"s. Why is God good? Why does God even exist? One is reduced to defining God as good and extant. In which case, I can just as well define morality without God.

I said it was not an impugnment. I base my whole worldview on the physical, not on what decisions are output by the computers in the skulls of the arbitrary subset called “religious people”.

Then by your own admission, you are not moral. Agreed?

I agree entirely.

Those consequences exist because the act is considered immoral. The consequence **if murder then jail is input to our decision process in order to prevent instances of immoral acts. That is not to say that immoral acts which go unpunished somehow become moral again: that is blatantly fallacious logical legerdemain.

I’m unsure why you think I’d disagree with this.

I say it has everything to do with morality, indeed that it is morality encapsulated. I ask again: is there anything logically inconsistent with an atheistic formulation of morality in terms of actions and consequences?

11

Its consequences, including society’s chosen punishment, the probability of that same thing happening to you and, unless you suffer a disorder called “psycopathy”, the discomfort of the empathic response you experience in response to witnessing the suffering of others.

The empathic response (empathy disorders notwithstanding) which evolution has endowed your neuropsychological apparatus with. This is why psychopaths are so dangerous, and must be either monitored 24-7 or simply locked up indefinitely.

The trick with empathy is that you are always watching.

12

Priceguy (-8.50/-5.33) ticks Strongly Disagree, for pretty much the same reasons as SentientMeat.

With an outside force, one still cannot escape an endless regression of “why”’s. What is it about the outside force that answers the question “why”?

Then what is the definition of “morally wrong” and “morally right”? What makes something wrong or right?

From a utilitarian point of view, if there are zero negative consequences, the act isn’t evil.

13

I think Polerius meant zero negative consequences for the actor, PG, not zero negative consequences in toto.

14

Ooh, I meant to mention that bit, but forgot; yes; invoking God as the source of morality doesn’t explain anything, it just pushes the question up a notch (and often in doing so, pushes it out of the range of conscious questioning for us). If God imposes morality, from where does he derive his standard?

15

Then he has completely misunderstood utilitarianism, if he thought it would be imperative to commit such an act. Polerius?

16

That’s the reason I said it was mostly a matter of definition, which makes the discussion rather pointless. Many people believe many different things, but supposedly the individual people believe their morality is absolute.

Yes, I’m aware of that. But at least that can be filed under: Someone Else’s Problem.

Well I was addressing the “a supernatural imaginary-friend-for-grownups” which I considered really unnecessary and condescending, not made any better by “Well, apologies for trying to make my atheistic worldview consistent!”

No because if there is such a thing a objective good and wrong outside humanity my actions might fall under one of those categories regardless of my personal belief, but by my own admission I am not overly constrained by philosophical moral constraints. Which is true. There are many people I’d harm could I do so with impunity.

There is this (erroneous) saying that the victor writes the history. If the Nazis had won WWII the holocaust might have been considered moral and laudable, while I think most people would consider the holocaust immoral regardless of what society considers. If something is considered good, even to the last of man, that it still might be moral wrong.

Because of the mention of Utilitarianism in the OP, which I consider a recipe for creating the best society for the largest number of people without morality. E.g. murder should be outlawed, not because it is moral wrong, but because it on the whole would make life worse for us all, which is all very rational, whereas a man guided by a religious morality might say murder should be outlawed becasue it is just plain wrong, even is it to the detriment of us all, as in capital punishment for instance (if we for the example consider CP best for society), which might be considered irrational.

Well we’ll just have to disagree on definition then. You can define it how you want, but as I view morality it is not based on a logical consistent formula or a theory of actions and consequences and commonly agreed upon conditions. I suppose this goes under the authoritarian scale, but I see it more as a question of philosophy or definition.

17

But where would it be defined as a moral wrong*?

18

I agree with the distinction between morals and ethics: in fact, so much so that, rather than “strongly disagree”, I merely disagree.

Sure, most people who have opinions that are thou shalt not’s arrived at them through religion, but humankind is so diverse that I’m sure there are plenty of people holding moral beliefs arrived at from a non-religious source.

It’s just that ethics are easier to derive from a nonreligious source, in fact, if you extend them enough they almost become a moral framework, if a more flexible version thereof. But human thought is not always so rigorous as to not permit an absolute rule merely because it wasn’t given from the Godhead!

19

It’s perfectly OK to agree to disagree. I was merely answering your charge that I am “cheating” in my argumentation by setting forth atheistic versions of morality. I hope you can accept that mine are every bit as valid as your own.

That first quote was hyperbole on my part, a response to the condescencion I percieve in the proposition itself. The second was, as I said, in response to your charge of “cheating”, which I suspect may also have been a stronger word than you really intended. I know we’re all friends here really :).

Well, OK, but that applies to atheist me too. Proposition #52, which you Agreed with, says “You cannot be moral without being religious”. You admit you are not religious under any sane definition. Therefore by your own reasoning you are not moral.

Of course: my own view of what is and is not moral might disagree with everyone else. I can still propose a nonreligious morality.

Then I think you misunderstand utilitarianism, which is just one example of a nonreligious morality. How can any proposed formulation of morality be without morality? That’s like saying the Many Worlds formulation of quantum mechanics is “without quantum mechanics”.

The proposition is not “You cannot be moral without being utilitarian”. I gave utilitariansim as my own preferred alternative to religion. Do you still consider that one cannot be moral without specifically being religious?

20

Glad to see that I’m not the only one that makes this distinction. I’m curious as to how others define the difference, since it is apparent to me that there is a difference.

Yeah; that’s why I include the “not necessarily”. A consistent extension of the whole idea of “what most people mean” vs. “what I mean”. While I can imagine (I think?) a set of moral absolutes not “handed down from on high”, I’ve yet to encounter a serious definition of such.