At Evolution News and Views, David Klinghoffer presents a challenge:
Man needs meaning. We crave it, especially when faced with adversity. I challenge any Darwinist readers to write some comments down that would be suitable, not laughable, in the context of speaking to people who have lived through an event like Monday’s bombing. By all means, let me know what you come up with.
Leaving aside Klinghoffer’s conflation of “Darwinism” with atheism, and reading it as a challenge for those of us who do not believe in a supernatural deity or an afterlife (which would include me), and despite lacking the eloquence of the speakers Klinghoffer refers to, let me offer some thoughts, not on Monday’s bombing, specifically, but on violent death in general, which probably touches us all, at some time. Too many lives end far too soon:
We have one life, and it is precious, and the lives of those we love are more precious to us than our own. Even timely death leaves a void in the lives of those left, but the gap left by violent death is ragged, the raw end of hopes and plans and dreams and possibilities. Death is the end of options, and violent death is the smashing of those options; Death itself has no meaning. But our lives and actions have meaning. We mean things, we do things, we act with intention, and our acts ripple onwards, changing the courses of other lives, as our lives are changed in return. And more powerful than the ripples of evil acts are acts of love, kindness, generosity, and imagination. Like the butterfly in Peking that can cause a hurricane in New York, a child’s smile can outlive us all. Good acts are not undone by death, even violent death. We have one life, and it is precious, and no act of violence can destroy its worth.
.
I think you’ve made a profound point Petrushka – I think that many theists and atheists talk past each other because truly that cannot appreciate how the other relates to such situations.
You have noted – and this is not that uncommon – that you feel physically ill when harming another person. William, otoh, can't fathom a rational basis for a moral system that does not include some form of independent-authority-based retribution/consequence system because – as he freely notes – he would not be a good person otherwise. I don't think William – and most other conservative religious folks – can even relate to the pain, self-doubt, and revulsion some people experience if they engage is such behavior.
OK, thanks.
As I said, quite unusual in my experience. And, I’m sure you won’t mind me saying, slightly repellent.
Elizabeth,
I would say that generally speaking it is always wrong to deliberately terminate life when it is not necessary for your own survival. Terminating life because it is inconvenient, revolting, problematical, burdensome, mentally horrifying or gross, or unlikely to live for very long is probably – to one degree or another – immoral.
In any individual case, I think a general rule of thumb is that the more rationalization one must use to justify their act, the more immoral it probably is.
That said, if one is willing to pay the moral price, do whatever you want. That’s why god gave you free will. I’m certainly no stranger to doing immoral things that I’m willing to pay the price for. I damn sure use and enjoy my free will.
I didn’t say I didn’t feel empathy. I said I’m not altruistic.
Thanks William – but I really wanted to hear your reasoning. What you’ve provided is sort of anti-reasoning: “if you have to rationalise, its probably wrong”.
Which seems to me to work out to: use your heart not your head. Which may be a good rule, maybe not. But it seems odd from someone whose criticism of atheists is that they have no rational basis for morality!
Does it not?
Just a general point: I’m not happy about people accusing other members here of being psychopaths. It’s a word flung about much too freely, IMO, and extremely unflattering.
I’m letting the posts stand, because William has not complained, but I am complaining on his behalf. Nobody here has any evidence that William is a psychopath, and the fact that he claims not to “be altruistic” is certainly not evidence. He doesn’t even seem to mean what most people mean by it, anyway, seeing as all his moral precepts seem to be basically altruistic (don’t hurt others for personal gain).
How do you know this statement is true: “the same moral architecture that is inherently in the mind of god is in ours” ?
Again you are taking the position that all ethics is simple, as long as we go with our gut. You’re arguing for “truthiness”. What you call morally obvious is in fact not challenging one’s own preconceptions and prejudices.
I don’t find animal rights simple at all. I don’t find the ethics of bio-engineering simple. Is it the moral action to always expose delusion, even when that delusion may be of benefit? Is it immoral to purchase a CD second hand? Is it morally acceptable to have more money than other people? How much more money? How do I resolve the trolley problem? Would it be morally acceptable to torture a baby if it could guarantee the future of humankind were free from suffering? My brother is a schizophrenic who also struggles with depression. A guy he used to be friends with committed suicide. He doesn’t know. To tell him would not help him in any way. However, he is an adult. Am I *morally* justified not to tell him? Please access your truthiness and tell me what God thinks on these issues.
William,
I realize you wrote that in response to Lizzie’s pregnancy scenarios, but you phrased it quite generally. Does ‘life’ include ‘animal life’ for you? Are you vegetarian?
Meat eating is yet another example of something that is self-evidently immoral to some, but perfectly fine to others.
It is an unflattering term, none-the-less it has a diagnostic meaning which is independent of an individual’s moral and ethical standing. And I disagree with you on this: a lack of altruism is evidence (though not conclusive) of sociopathy, which I believe is further supported by WJM’s view of how others feel/think.
I say all of this not to defend myself nor cast aspersions on WJM, but to point out that – in yet another way – we may be talking past one another (this time because of fundamentally different experiences of being human).
We all have foundational assumptions upon which our understanding of the world is built. WJM believes only a small minority are altruistic, unlike Lizzie (and myself) who believe the opposite is closer to the truth. Consequently It’s easy to see why your views on morality are so different.
Sorry, but I think the term is technical rather than pejorative. Just one end of a spectrum. Not unlike Aspergers. People who do not understand empathy self-identify.
There is some utility in having people who are not excessively empathetic.
But I will not do it again. But I blame whoever labels the spectrum extremes “pathies” rather than just describing the range.
I’m not talking about empathy William. I’m talking about actually knowing what it’s like to be repulsed by doing bad things because it makes you feel bad. If I was going to discuss your ability to empathize, I’d focus on your statement you don’t have an altruistic bone in your body (which personally I find a little difficult to actually believe as well, but that’s a different subject), which, if true, would be related to a lack of empathy. But that’s not what I’m focusing on in this case. Rather, I’m focusing on your admission that you used to not be a good person at all. Here’s what you said:
You’ve stated similar things previously. Now I don’t know the specifics of your self-image as an amoral person and I don’t need to know that, but I do know that most folks who self-identify as amoral readily admit that while they have the capacity to feel guilt for perceived wrongs they’ve done and empathy for harm they’ve caused others, they lack any actual somatic response to those actions. In other words, they don’t feel any revulsion while committing amoral acts.
It’s certainly conceivable that you’re exception to this rule or that you weren’t actually as bad as you have implied, but going with the odds and given some of the other things you’ve written, it seems a likely accurate assessment.
I think that we’d need to really hash out the strengths and weaknesses of various different non-theistic approaches to morality before comparing and contrasting with theistic approaches. If there’s interest in starting a post on non-theistic approaches to morality, I’ll gladly jump on that band-wagon — I’ve given a lot of thought to that issue.
Sure, especially if it helps me overcome my prejudice against philosophy! 🙂
Yes please!
Yes, I know it’s technical, but it is also pejorative, because it is a category specifically designed to capture the kinds of characteristics associated with criminal behaviour, and psychopaths were classically described by Robert Hare as being “Without Conscience”. This is the case whether we consider psychopathy pathological or not. The same is not true of Autistic Spectrum, or psychosis, for instance.
And more to the point: the reason I think it is “flung about much too freely” is that psychopathy scales are a spectrum, but psychopath is a category. It is possible to have moderately high scores on a psychopathy scale but not be a psychopath, either technically or in lay terms (having no conscience).
Robert Hare is a good scientist (I’ve met him, and my husband has co-authored papers with him) but it bothers me that his book (Without Conscience) seems to have liberated the word into the wild, as it were, to be applied to anyone who shows, or even claims to have, any of the characteristics on his scale.
Forensic psychiatry is complicated.
*grumble grumble*
Indeed. The apparently intuitive, somewhat flexible nature of WJM’s approach to morality does not help the case that atheists have no rational basis for theirs. WJM might not have a rational basis for it if he turned atheist, but that is a different matter.
It’s my understanding that the more religious you are the more likely you are to behave in an ‘immoral’ way
http://www.skeptically.org/hhor/id15.html
I can’t find the study I was thinking of, it’s newer then the above but says more or less the same thing.
Which to my mind totally undercuts WJM’s argument, such as it is.
From OM’s study
All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are “born again” or “chosen” have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers “truth”, they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason.
Lack of curiosity and lack of respect for people who have different views was certainly my impression gleaned from interactions at UD.
Exactly my point, the muslim suicide bombers acted morally, according to their moral.
I think the problem is that moral has two meanings, one is the feeling that every human been has due his consciussness that there right and wrong behaviors. The other is the study of what behvoirs are wrong or rights is a sinonimous of ethics, usually moral is more related with personal behaiviors and ethics with public behaiviors.
Off course they do, with agreed rules of behaivior and defined the actions for the violators everybody can serve on ethics committees.
When somebody says that atheist can´t found a moral, is not saying that they do not have moral in the sense of consciussnes of wrong or right, or that a atheist cannot act ethically. They said that the moral, as personal ethic, derived for their view of the world will be relative: There is no way to say that the moral of muslim bombers is better than yours. The only way to “proove” that will be wait eons and see wich genes get fixed. Second problem for atheist is that moral suppose freedom, and if moral is the product of RM+NS each individual has the moral that his genes and his enviroment allowed to have. No freedom to determine what is good and what is bad, and also not freedon to act according or against a rule. Our acts are like a lion eating a zebra.Third problem is that there is no differences in acting in one way or in other, or at least again the humans in millions of years will see wich genes will get fixed, so the contribution of our good acts are very marginal and then, Who cares?
Blas,
There’s really only one possible reaction to this screed – no, two reactions.
1. Spell-checkers are useful
2. Eh?
As always, there is the third possibility. English may not be Blas’ native language.
True. All the more reason to use a spell-checker. Not a perfect solution, but helps prevent miscomprehension and to improve readability. A courtesy to host and readers, but not a killer issue.
The “Eh?” was evinced by my thinking that no-one AFAIK has said that morals/morality are determined by genetic history except in the very broadest sense of being able to HAVE (and discuss) morality at all.
I was only thinking that most dichotomies are false. Don’t mind me, carry on!
ETA
That spurred me to try and interpret the comment by Blas and, yes his point seems to be that whoever thinks morals are determined by genetics is wrong. So, who does Blas think is making that argument?
No, my argument is atheist have to found his moral on natural selection and that is a useless moral.
No, we don’t have to do that. That would be silly. You might as well found your morality on gravity.
We found our morality, I suggest, on what makes for a fair and peaceful society.
There have been many scientific studies on animal morality, as Frans de Waal describes in this TED Talk.
Sure? Tell me how. How gravity can be related with the “goodness” of our acts.
Why? If we are the product of RM+NS the only thing important is make viable descendants, if we are going to do it in a fair and peaceful society or in other way only the time will give us the answer, but having only one set of moral genes make us more vulnerable. From an evolutionistic point of view is better if there is people with a moral opposite to yours.
Is it? Why?
Is it? Why?
You are making some strong claims and I fail to see on what basis you are making those claims – where is your evidence?
Human bees are the product of RM+NS. There is any scope to his existance?
No.
There is any reason for his existance? No.
There is a goal in his existance? No, naturalism exclude goals.
They are only evolved replicators, that try to relicate themselves. Why? just because is what they are. What is “good” or bad for a replicator? Just what make him a more succesfull replicator, and what make us a more succesfull replicator it will depend of the variable external circumtances. Today maybe something, tomorrow maybe something else so from a specie standpoint better the more differents pool of genes avaible also the moral genes.
Really?
You require reasoning as to why it’s immoral to unneccessarily kill other living things?
Morality has to do with living things – affecting them directly or indirectly. Torturing a lump of clay has no moral component. Torturing a baby bunny is self-evidently wrong.
Living things are uniquely protected by the moral landscape; they are morally precious. This means they have a purpose that exceeds that of non-living things. As entities with apparent, precious moral purpose (whether or not they have moral choice, as in free will), it is our moral duty to protect living things as much as possible – including ourselves.
Thus, in your examples, it doesn’t really matter if one considers “the fetus” a human or not, killing life because it is inconvenient or its origin or situation assails our cultural or personal sensibility is probably immoral. The only case where I would say it is not immoral is if the mother’s (or someone’s) life is in danger.
As far as animal rights, yes, I think most of the meat industry is very immoral, and I think that eating meat unnecessarily is, to some degree, immoral. I’m not sure where I’d draw the line on food.
As I said, I’m morally lazy. I never claimed to have the moral high ground here; I only claimed that Darwinistic morality (philosophically speaking) is always ultimately incoherent and irrational. That doesn’t keep atheistic materialists from being more moral than I; it just means they’re either stealing theistic concepts and/or are really superficial in their beliefs.
So you’ve changed your mind about “not causing harm” as being the basis for morality?
Given that you can survive perfectly well on a diet containing no meat, how are you defining “unnecessary meat consumption” here?
I think it’ll come down to “whatever WJM thinks the right amount of meat to eat is” rather then some “objective” standard.
William,
There’s nothing logically incoherent about God commanding you to torture babies unless you assume that 1) God is perfectly good and 2) torturing babies is objectively evil (or that God is perfectly evil and torturing babies is objectively good).
You haven’t justified #1, the claim that God (if he exists) is perfectly good or that his moral sense is reliable. Can you?
We both believe that torturing babies is evil, but you claim that it is objectively evil. Your claim is based on a) your feeling that it is self-evidently evil and b) your assertion that “the same moral architecture that is inherently in the mind of god is in ours.”
You haven’t justified (b). Can you do so, especially in light of the fact that sincere people disagree on what is “self-evidently” good and evil?
Lastly, even if you were somehow able to demonstrate (b), it would only show that we share God’s sense of good and evil. You haven’t shown that this moral sense is reliable. Can you?
Could you point to some examples of people or societies who practice “Darwinistic morality”?
Does it? Then perhaps, again , you can give some examples of what brought you to that conclusion.
And given that you are not advocating for any particular religion on what basis are you saying that theistic concepts are being stolen? Whose? When? What evidence do you have that those concepts are unique to theism? That theism did not steal them?
etc etc.
That that terrifies you, right?
Quite. And so?
Except that already happens. And what works, spreads.
Did you know that often a virulent virus will becomes less virulent over time to allow the host more time to spread it?
And this happens. For example, cults arise with morals derived from a charismatic leader. When those morals are at odds with society’s norms the cult usually loses.
What you are saying ignores the fact that humans are special, as they are conscious and can plan, understand, and change how their actions affect others.
So we can’t keep around people with different morals to us, where those morals are unacceptable and lead to (for example) murder “just in case” we enter an environment where psychopaths are the most fit. We are not animals. And your point is an absurd strawman.
I asked you to prove it, not justify it. That’s a claim, so provide evidence for it.
Animals do quite well without morals at all (generally) so what is your scientific evidence that disparate morality increases overall survival?
So please justify your claim that from a species standpoint the more “moral genes” the better. And please also explain what a “moral gene” is, as that’s new to me.
Sorry, but we, according to evolution are just evolved monkeys. The other day said that a pig is more human that a human fetus. So where do you see the differences?
“That’s a claim, so provide evidence for it.”
What kind of eviddence would you like?
“Animals do quite well without morals at all (generally) so what is your scientific evidence that disparate morality increases overall survival? ”
One comment up here said that animals has moral.
“And please also explain what a “moral gene” is, as that’s new to me.”
Well, Lizzy said that evolution explains very well the appearance of morality, then should be gen relates. A gene for morality should exist. or not?
I´m trying to justify an atheistic morality, if you find it illogical I agree, because my point is exactly that. If anybody can justify better an atheistic moral I´ll be glad to know, but please justify why we are more than evolved replicators evolving and what make us different to the animals, and how and evolved replicator evolving is free to chose what to do.
No, William. What makes for a fair and peaceful society is altruism – not causing harm to others for personal gain, and/or more positively, benefiting others when it does not directly benefit oneself.
when that principle is violated, society begins to break down, which is why we put in place social and legal structures that tend to promote adherence to the principle.
If you look at the human history usully peace was reached not because of altruism and a “do not harm others” rule but because of the implementation of principles of authority, and that authority was usually not altruistic and has the right to harm who he wanted.
I asked you what do you think about Milgram´s experiments.
I think you’ll find that was/is trivially true in general. It’s the whole point of authority – did you miss that?
But what happens if you abuse your authority?
Usually a more abusive authority replace the one in place.
I agree that peace can, in some sense, be brought about by dictatorship, if you count brutal authority as peace. But I said “fair and peaceful”, which has on the whole tended to have been brought about by democratic societies with a fair system of justice.
I think they revealed that it is very easy for us to suppress our sense of empathy if we delegate responsibility for our moral actions to authority.
It’s one of the reasons I distrust any moral system based on claimed divine “authority”.
If you can survive just fine without eating meat, then eating meat would be immoral via extension – you didn’t slaughter the animal to eat it, but you’re supporting the unnecessary slaughter of animals.
Yes, there should be genetic links, but they will be extremely complex. If I were to start looking (and people have looked, for example, for genetic associations with psychopathy, also abnormalities of brain structure and function), I would look for genetic links with various cognitive functions, including theory-of-mind capacity, language, and inhibitory control of action, and for gene expression within brain areas implicated in those functions.
Blas:
OMagain:
Human bees sure as hell scare the bejesus out of me! Time to close that lab, I think.
I’m not sure what you mean by “justify”. That god is perfectly good and that there are recognizable, self-evidently true (in the objective sense) moral statements available to us are necessary for any coherent, meaningful moral system to exist.
If you’re asking if I can prove god is perfectly good – no, I cannot. If you’re asking if I can prove that particular moral statement is self-evidently true – no, I cannot.
You are trying to justify what you think is an atheistic morality. Somehow you’ve brought evolution into it – goodness knows why. Evolution is not a guiding principle, but a potential explanation of what is.
Nobody thinks like you appear to think they must think.
More complex or less are genes of an evolved replicator evolving. So nothing different with a mosquito.
I’m sorry, I’m not clear about what you are saying – could you rephrase?
Then how did we end up with so many democracies in the world?
Do you eat meat William?