Thinking Christian Comments
As I wrote on your last post ...
Life is temporary, precarious, and (apparently,so far) unique to earth. that is why it is so precious. Knowing that everyone else is in the same situation is why people (hopefully) make good decisions, so we can all enjoy our "time in the sun".
Simple. Easy. No contraditions. Just empathy for your fellows, including our relatives the animals. Still "truly puzzled"? PLEASE quit confussing Social darwinism with evolution, or for that matter ethics or morals with atheism. They are only related if you are in the "we all need a big sky daddy to be good" mindset.
If we want to discuss inconsistency, then meshing a "loving god" with natural disasters is a harder fit.
As long as we are clearing up puzzling coralations (nice way to drop eric and dylan as examples of personal values... real fair) why is the highest measurable percentage of christain populations in the prisons?
Another thought, if you assume the commandments are how you decide what is evil, (instead of your own brain) then rule number one suggest that people that don't except any god are evil, so you need to make that fit to us somehow. thoughts?
Hey Tom,
Thanks for the link and for your contributions to the discussion. Just to clarify: I (Chad) am definitely not an atheist. I did the "blog swap" with the atheist and posted my thoughts on his site here.
Yikes! Sorry about that, Chad--I just read it wrong, and I'll correct the post.
No problem. Also, we've extended the "blog swap" idea into the creation of a new monthly blog carnival between atheists and Christians called "God or Not". You can read about it here. If you like the idea of getting the message out there in this type of forum, I hope you'll contribute and spread the word. Thanks!
Eric, I don't see the logical link between something being temporary and being precious. Thre are counter-examples (paper plates, for example).
But regardless of that point, you're not addressing what I wrote about. Where does value come from? What is it in the mindless, blind, purposeless processes of chance, necessity, and time, that somehow produces value?
I'm certainly not talking about social Darwinism. I'm talking about the logical implications of any life view that accepts a blind, purposeless source to everything.
"Confusing atheism with ethics and morals" is not at issue here. Atheism is an overarching belief system with profoundly far-reaching implications. Ethics and morals are included among those implications, and if they cannot be explained consistently within that system (as I maintain is the case) then something is wrong with it.
I'm not sure what's unfair about dropping the Columbine shooters into the discussion. They lived out the values clarification approach to ethics that all the schools taught for decades (and some still are). It's a great example of what can result from teaching ethics that lack a proper ground. They did just what many of us have been taught to do: they lived out their values.
Why is the highest percentage of Christians in prison? First, I would ask you to substantiate that with a source, since I haven't heard it elsewhere. Then we would need to ask how many of them were Christians when they committed their crimes, vs. how many came to Christ in the judicial process or in prison. My personal experience, corroborated my many others, shows that people are often ready to become believers in Christ while in prison. Some of it may be fake, but for most, it's not because they think it will be advantageous in seeking parole or any such thing, but because the false props that held up their self-sufficiency without God have been kicked out from under them. They come to Christ because they finally see their need for him. At any rate, I wouldn't presume to answer without more information.
I don't quite get what you're saying in the last paragraph. I have an idea, but if I'm wrong I'll waste time responding to the wrong thing.
Finally, as to the consistency of God allowing natural disasters, nobody said it was an easy question, but I do believe it has been adequately addressed; here, for example. I would do it injustice if I tried to write a quick answer here.
Plus, the topic here is not the theistic problem of evil but the non-theistic problem of evil. They're related subjects, but let's focus on just one at a time.
Chad, the Carnival sounds pretty interesting. Great idea!
Tom: ethics and morals are apparent in other primates besides humans (self-sacrifice for others in one's group, etc.), so no doubt morals and ethics would exist even if religion didn't, which is why atheists can still be moral and ethical.
Can you reframe your question in recognition of the fact that all primates have some sense of morals and ethics?
Part of what evolution has created is the ability for ethics and morals. Remember, it's not only survival of the individual, but survival of the species; if some altruistic behavior creates less of a chance for the survival of one individual but increases the chances for survival of other individuals, that may have an ultimate evolutionary value.
"The ability for ethics and morals" does not translate to an explanation of ethics and morals. It fails at the is-ought transition.
Do other primates try to explain ethics and morals? Their behavior is not relevant to the question I'm raising.
The issue is not performance but explanation, since as I said above, many people's behavior is relatively fine. But you would probably agree that not everyone's behavior is. The problem is, how do you explain ethics and morals to them in such a way that it carries more than the weak force of varying social or personal opinion?
I don't understand your distinction between the ability and an explanation for morals. Please explain. I see that the *ability* to hold morals *explains* why they are there, even without religion. They carry an evolutionary value, so they tend to recur.
I also don't understand the is/ought distinction in this context.
Can you say in one sentence what is the question you're raising? I reviewed your blog entry and couldn't figure it out.
I can't figure out your last question. I hope you appreciate that, for once, I'm not asking for a simple, direct, sucinct, one-sentence explanation, but, instead, I need a fuller explanation of what you mean by your last sentence.
Tom, you said...
Eric, I don't see the logical link between something being temporary and being precious. Thre are counter-examples (paper plates, for example).
The link between temporary and precious is easy to see, if YOU are the paper plate. I never existed before, and when I die, I will never exist again. And from about 2 years old, we know we are in this same situation with every other living thing. Life IS precious, and I think it is easy to see that it is just as valuable to you as it is to me... so I would try and help you make it too. It is natural, I think. If you must find a "reason" then think about how good you felt helping the people down south. Do you think it feels less good for an atheist? It just feels right, and it helps the species to help, naturally.
you say
"Confusing atheism with ethics and morals" is not at issue here. Atheism is an overarching belief system with profoundly far-reaching implications. Ethics and morals are included among those implications, and if they cannot be explained consistently within that system (as I maintain is the case) then something is wrong with it.
You are simply wrong in your primary assumptions, so the conclusions are wrong. One more time, (hopefully the last time) Atheism is simply A(without)theism(a belief in god or gods) Put it all together, Without a belief in god or gods". It is NOT a belief system ("overarching" or otherwise).
Do other primates try to explain ethics and morals? Their behavior is not relevant to the question I'm raising.
There behavior is most telling, if you are truly interested in how morals might have evolved in man. The positive, natural interaction everyday and everywhere between men (or other primates) isn't new, or unnatural. Harmful, destructive behavior isn't the norm among humans (and other primates), but it is what "makes the news".
I don't need to be told why "I ought to care", I just do. So do you, and so do most people, and so (it seems) do primates. No god(s) needed.
As I see it, "clarifying personal values" stops at your person (thus PERSONAL) and doesn't include pressing your values on others and ESPECIALLY acting out on OTHERS. That is the social contract that a just society is built on. If you need to bring up Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as examples of tolerant, liberal education, then it should be fair to bring up the 9-11 hijackers as examples of people who beleive in a god, and had plenty of guidance as what there values ought to be. Think about that a moment, before reacting. If you think it was unfair to bring them up, is it because they are atypical of the people who believe in gods, or have strong values that they think everyone should have? Perhaps Eric and Dylan are just as atypical?
And in a perfect world, I wouldn't get "there" and "their" confused. 
Excellent points well said Eric, couldn't have put it better myself.
One small clarification, Eric: I think harmful, destructive behavior may not be more common than helpful or moral behavior in primates, including humans, but surely harmful, destructive behavior is a part of the natural world of all primate, just like helpful behavior is.
Paul,
Yeah, harmful, destructive behavior is part of the natural world as well. I hope I didn't sound like I thought it wasn't. I just didn't want to have a natural condition confused with a normal or default condition.
More thoughts... Group to group interaction, and territorial disputes often appear more destructive within animal species, and I hope humans can see a lesson in that, for our own species. Forming groups (by saying we are different somehow) and/or isolating these groups into territories (geographical, power, etc) weakens the entire species. But, then, that is how an individual amasses resources and power. I think the dynamics of the situation(s) that produce conflicts are more "telling" than the "morals" of the individuals involved. The scarcity of resorces (food, females, parking spots, etc) and territories are/were the reason for conflict (and evil behavior), not the morals of the participants. The evil without reason might just be that (without reason) Still thinking on this...
Eric " The scarcity of resorces (food, females, parking spots, etc) and territories are/were the reason for conflict (and evil behavior), not the morals of the participants. The evil without reason might just be that (without reason) Still thinking on this...
"
I think you are onto something here, Eric.
I'm interested in seeing you develop this thought.
Good links to your own answers, Tom.
Eric, your response is intriguing and it raises three questions.
First:
The link between temporary and precious is easy to see, if YOU are the paper plate.
If this is true, then humankind is committing atrocities far beyond anything we've ever realized. Think of all the paper plates who view themselves as so valuable!
This may seem like a cheap answer, but hang on with me for a moment. I know paper plates are not precious in a moral sense, except as they may represent a waste of resources or of landfill space, so tossing one out cannot be compared to other moral horrors like murder.
But I have a question for you in this context. As an atheist, you probably believe the whole universe, including yourself, is the product of nothing but chance (blind luck), necessity (blind physical law), and time. Is there an ontological (defined) difference between yourself and that paper plate? What is it that differentiates you, as a product of pure, blind chance and necessity, from that paper plate, which is equally a product of blind chance and necessity? How is your value as a human explainable in those blind terms?
Another question: how can atheism not be an overarching belief system? To say it is simply the absence of belief in God does not suffice. You can't claim to believe nothing at all. You apparently believe that there is no God, which implies all kinds of things about the nature of the universe. If you say you are agnostic, that's different, but that's not what you've said.
And then this:
I don't need to be told why "I ought to care", I just do. So do you, and so do most people, and so (it seems) do primates. No god(s) needed.
You used the term "most people." This gets to the heart of my question. What do we have to offer to those others who are not "most people, who disagree? What explanation of ethics do we have for them? What can we articulate that is normative (defined)?
(Eric, please don't assume I'm including definitions because I think you don't know these terms. They're for the benefit of anyone else who may need them.)
Paul,
Wikipedia does a decent job of describing the is-ought problem, which originated with Hume. I'm hoping that with that explanation, my point will make sense in this context. Just because moral behavior is, (that is, that it can be observed in various populations), it does not follow from that observation that one can make a valid statement of what ought to be done.
The difference between ability and explanation is the difference between doing what is acknowledged as good, and explaining how in ultimate terms we know that it is good. An adequate explanation, if one exists, answers the question, "what is it about this behavior that is normative? If someone disagrees that it is normative, what answer would we give to them?
An example of such an explanation would be one that tells Osama bin Laden good reasons for not plotting death and mayhem in the West, in spite of his cultural, psychological, social, and religious beliefs that say it is an ethical and right thing to do. Most (not all) currently practiced non-theist ethical theories rely on culture or society as their basis, and this is obviously inadequate when you consider the answers that local culture and society give to Al Qaeda.
The second paragraph here is my brief restatement of the problem, as you've requested.
Tom, there were a lot more than three questions, but I will try. you said ( if I might skip to the end of the first part)
Is there an ontological (defined) difference between yourself and that paper plate? What is it that differentiates you, as a product of pure, blind chance and necessity, from that paper plate, which is equally a product of blind chance and necessity? How is your value as a human explainable in those blind terms?The plate metaphor was yours, and you were using the plate as an example of a "low value" temporary item. When I said "the link between temporary and precious is easy to see, if YOU are the paper plate", I was talking from the perspective of the plate, if we are all plates, and all destine for the landfill. How did I get to the point of being asked what the difference is between me and a paper plate !
That is a first for me. I would hope I am different in every "category of being" from a paper plate, or at least the "minds" catagory! If not, you have defined me into a paper plate(!), and my only "salvation" is the recycle bin to be reborn again. Perhaps in my next life I can move up to a cardboard box.To get far, far away from the paper plate analogy, I was talking about the temporary state of awareness (as a subset of the state of living) and how with self-awareness of your own eventual end of life, and your identity with every other living thing (because of your shared state, and ending) you value life. Life is short, only because dead is forever.
I don't understand why or how you are trying to tie the value of life (or man?) to how it or we were "produced". Value to who? I am talking about the value of life to the living, and you seem to be talking about some overall value, where you want the living to justify their "worth". One more heartbeat is just as precious to a fly as it is to me, even if he can't type about it on your blog. The exception, of course, is mosquitoes
I set their value. splat. (would you believe I even felt bad typing that as a joke?) you said
Another question: how can atheism not be an overarching belief system?Because it isn't.
To say it is simply the absence of belief in God does not suffice.What could be more sufficient that saying what it is? You have the concept.
You can't claim to believe nothing at allI could I suppose, but I am not. I don't beleive in God. Where, when, how and why would you get "I beleive nothing at all" out of that? I guess I am back to being a paper plate again. It is not a "claim", it is a fact.
You apparently believe that there is no God,I don't beleive in god, and I am glad that is becoming apparent to you.
which implies all kinds of things about the nature of the universethe only thing it implies (and gets right) is that Eric doesn't beleive in god. I don't see how you could measure how little impact that has on the "nature of the universe". Except, I suppose for the one tiny chunk called Eric, and it suits him just fine.
You used the term "most people." This gets to the heart of my question. What do we have to offer to those others who are not "most people, who disagree? What explanation of ethics do we have for them? What can we articulate that is normative (defined)?I think recognizing the reasons why we have conflict is a good start, as I started to think through above. Beyond that, the benefits of good behavior will always be there for the empathic individual... it just feels right. Looking at little kids, it seems like being helpful is a natural desire, and something gets lost when we grow into completion.
I am still thinking on this... seems like I am getting closer to viewpoint. I mostly just wanted to clear up the atheist definition and paper plate side points.
Another quick thought, I think I was wrong when I said you were first to use the plate as a metaphore... I think you were being literal at first, and then just followed my "be the plate" lead. Sorry about that.
Eric,
This is actually a pretty important question:
How did I get to the point of being asked what the difference is between me and a paper plate ! That is a first for me. I would hope I am different in every "category of being" from a paper plate, or at least the "minds" catagory!
I agree 1000% that you are different from the paper plate. But maybe I didn't ask the question clearly enough. Given the fact that the plate and the person both come (in your worldview as I understand it) from blind, purposeless, mindless chance and necessity, what is it that raised you and me ontologically above the level of said paper plate? It's another way of asking, how did humans acquire this value in a universe that knows nothing of value? How can it be more than just illusion, especially if it's just for a moment (relatively speaking) and then whoosh, we're gone?
As to your atheism not implying any further beliefs, that's difficult to understand. Most atheists say their atheism implies that the universe is either eternal or self-created (both of which have major philosophical problems) or "popped" into existence through the Big Bang, possibly through interaction of other prior universes. Most atheists would say their atheism implies that Biblical norms have no force. Most would say their view implies that the universe is the product of blind, purposeless forces. If you're an exception to that, then you're an exception--but I'd sure like to see you carry the implications of your basic belief that there is no God out to their logical conclusions.
I just realized another way to ask the question I'm trying to ask, Eric.
You said you are "different in 'every category of being.'" You were speaking hyperbolically, and with that in mind I agree heartily.
But let's chase that down further. No, you and I are not different in every category of being from paper plates. We are equally made of atoms and molecules, we are all held together by electromagnetic, strong, and weak nuclear forces, we experience space and time, and both the plate and humans are subject to gravity, to physical and chemical effects, and so on. And our physical existence is equally impermanent; in fact, paper plates last much longer in landfills than bodies do in graves.
Now, does this similarity also extend to, "we are equally the product of mindless, purposeless, blind chance and necessity"? Does it also extend to, "All of our internal processes are expressions of where we came from: blind, purposeless, mindless"? If not, why not? And if so, how can we really explain our value being any different than the value of our plate?
The is-ought problem:
I think your approach can be reduced down to asking the question, "How do we know which system of morality is correct?" My answer is that we believe, generally, in the morals of the society in which we were raised. I'd be interested to see your answer to that.
Tom wrote: "Most (not all) currently practiced non-theist ethical theories rely on culture or society as their basis, and this is obviously inadequate when you consider the answers that local culture and society give to Al Qaeda."
It is not inadequate at all. I can oppose the morality that lets Al Qaeda murder innocents merely on the basis that my society does not allow it. You don't need an absolute basis for morality in order to believe in and even fight for your own. My morality is mine and my society's and that's enough to fight for it if necessary. Why wouldn't that be enough?
In general, the morals of a society are ever-changing and are determined by the individuals within that society. In America, I would say a sociologist could identify each decade of the last century or so by a description of its prevailing moral standards.
Subjects indicating fairly recently changing of a society's morality, off the top of my head:
Infanticide (ok, not so recent). Euthanasia. Abortion. Homosexuality. Pre-marital sex. Numbers of sex partners. Divorce. Unwed parenting. Animal cruelty. Public profanity. Stealing. Adultery. Forced labour. Forced sterilization/experimentation on handicapped. Status of aboriginal people.
etc.
Paul,
Let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. You believe that recent terrorism against the West is wrong. You also believe that if you had grown up in a culture strongly influenced by al Qaeda (or Hamas or whatever) you would probably believe that terrorism against the West is often right and good.
Is that a good interpretation of what you're saying?
Yes. Wouldn't you agree that most people who grow up in a society adopt the morals of that society? This seems empirically not controversial at all.
Right--it's not controversial as a description of how societies operate. But it leads us in an important direction. I have a question to follow that one.
Is one of those groups right (the Western group, vs. the militant Islamic group), and the other wrong? Or are both right? Or something else?
Tom,
If not, why not? And if so, how can we really explain our value being any different than the value of our plate?You keep coming back to how we came to be having anything to do with our value, and I still think you are asking about our value to the "universe" instead of the value of life to the living. We are alive and paper plates are not. We debate value, and what it means, and paper plates do not. They can have value to us, but nothing has value to them, because they aren't alive. The universe isn't alive either, so we have no value at all TO the universe, because it is impossible for any thing but the living to set value. Because most of us can see the value of the universe to us, perhaps that is why we try and personify it into a god, and then decide it holds us in some value.
If you think that the universe finds you of value (or thinks anything about anything) then you are correct, it is just an illusion. We are valuable to ourselves, and to others, and that is it. If it makes a person feel insignificant in the "eyes" of the universe, perhaps they should find out their value from things that actually have eyes like themselves, other people, and living things.
As to your atheism not implying any further beliefs, that's difficult to understand.
I will try taking the next paragraph point by point, as Eric, one particular atheist, but I can't speak to a philosophy, because it isn't one. Many polls show that when people are asked if they don't believe in god, and also asked if they are an atheist, there are more people in the first catagory than the second, even though they mean the same thing. Everything from immorality to communism (in the west) or capitalism (in the middle east)has been associated with the word, so it is hard to get back to simple, simple, simple, a-theism. "Without a belief in god". Atheism doesn't define me or my life, or any other atheist. Ask us what we beleive, not what we don't believe. I don't believe in Allah either, and I assume we share that belief. Eric and Tom can share that un-beleif, yet we have VERY different views of the universe, correct? What "further" beliefs does our a-allahism imply?
Most atheists say their atheism implies that the universe is either eternal or self-created (both of which have major philosophical problems) or "popped" into existence through the Big Bang, possibly through interaction of other prior universesAll atheist would say it wasn't god, only because he doesn't exist. I could say it was space aliens, all a dream, or we are all part of the "matrix" and I would still be an atheist. BUT, to help you with your point, I personally am interested in whatever the most likely explanation would be, and evidence and science can explain more every day. "God Power" has never explained anything to me. I like to see how things really happened. How the universe came to be, is interesting, but hardly a basis for a philosophy. It might prove valuable to future people, if the species makes it long enough to worry about cosmic time scales, but otherwise it just makes good reading, not a reason for living.
Most atheists would say their atheism implies that Biblical norms have no force.I have read the bible many times now, but I don't know what you mean by a biblical norm... or even what "have force" would mean. If you mean the biblical stories like talking plants, virgin births, and stuffing all the animals of the world onto a boat, then I think they have force as a myth, but not as a life philosophy, and definitely not as history or fact. If you are asking if I think the ethics of the bible are defensible, then I would say the good ones "have force" and the bad ones (what is with all the "stoning"?) are better left to antiquity. I do think there are some nuggets of wisdom in what Jesus said, and some of what he said was ahead of his time, but we have done MUCH better at improving the lives of man in our time. He could have said "slavery is wrong" instead of how many "stripes" to use when whipping your slave. Stuff like that.
Any of that an answer to the question?
Most would say their view implies that the universe is the product of blind, purposeless forces.As apposed to "God forces"? Well, yeah. Otherwise we would believe in god. I don't confuse selective forces with purposeful forces. Isn't this the same as the first question? Except the first added some sort of implied philosophical dilemma if the universe didn't care about us.
If you're an exception to that, then you're an exception--but I'd sure like to see you carry the implications of your basic belief that there is no God out to their logical conclusions.God means everything to you, so my saying "I don't beleive in god" means much more to you than to me. Capital "G" God is just another god like all the other gods to me, a myth that just happens to be the most popular one right now. And Capital "G" god isn't even the most popular everywhere. All of the "other" god stories are just as un-believable, and not just to me. I think we share that.
Your next post was back to the plates, and you asking if my internal processes are "blind, purposeless, mindless"? I literally cannot "decide" that I am mindless. When I am in the grave, I will indeed be much more closer to a paper plate. I guess my main purpose is to avoid disintegration, and my sight helps me do that. I know you are talking about my processes at a deeper level, perhaps down to the on/off chemical level, where you could see me as much more a paper plate, ontologicaly (we are never going to use a different example are we) but I set my own value. Some people don't see any personal value, and "check out", and some don't see any value to others and "take them out", but, again, "most" do see the infinite value of life, because we all do go "whoosh" and then we are gone. (as you put it so well)
And I am finally back to discussing where we might get our values, which was where this all started. Are the Atheist definition and "eric as a paper plate" sub-issues covered now? For some reason I am finding the paper plate discussion very funny, mostly because it is such a goofy image. What if I end up resigning myself to the idea that I am no different than a paper plate... did you "win"? I have no idea where you are going with this part of the debate, but I feel like I need to defend my apparently inflated self-image against the pull of paper platedom.
Eric,
Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. I think one of the things that differentiates us, if I read you correctly, is that it is not a high priority to you that you develop a coherent picture of how things fit together--the source of things, their purpose, and how people fit into it all. I think that's why you can feel so much more content with the "whoosh" effect than I am able to. It seems strange to me that things would not fit together more consistently and coherently than what you are describing here.
I've been kind of chuckling to myself about the paper plate analogy, too. I thought last time about suggesting a color of plate so we could make it a bit more picturesque, but then I realized it was hopeless. There's not much you can do to make a paper plate pretty in prose--not unless you're a far better writer than I.
Your statement, " I literally cannot 'decide' that I am mindless," relates to something I've been listening to today, a talk by Alvin Plantinga. You can find it in audio and in transcript here. He's a top-flight philosopher, a Christian, who would agree with you wholeheartedly in that statement, and would ask you to follow that difficulty to its conclusion. I haven't heard the whole talk yet, but I think that's where he's heading with it.
Is one of those groups right (the Western group, vs. the militant Islamic group), and the other wrong? Or are both right? Or something else?
What does it mean to ask if one group is right and the other is wrong when right and wrong are defined by each group? The situation is realitivistic. Both are right for themselves. Intellectually I can understand that another society may have morals very different from mine, but my morals are so ingrained that I cannot imagine not following and defending my own.
Then is it possible for you to say they did wrong when they killed those thousands of people on 9/11?
It sounds like you're saying it is meaningless ("what does it mean to ask if one group is right and the other is wrong...?" . . . "Both are right for themselves.")
If it was not wrong, then what was it?
How about wrong but rationalized. We know it was morally wrong to drop the a-bomb, but we rationalized it in a bigger picture.
Instead of the easy targets (so to speak) of the hijackers themselves, a better place to understand how people who are good (from most societies perspectives) can enable bad things is to look at the "base". I think americans greatly underestimate the role of the formation of Israel as a "battle cry". On our "side", do you see any yellow stickers that say "support our diplomats"?
I know that when you start to look at the "reasons" for other peoples actions (i.e. terrorism), it usually comes across as making excuses for criminals, but that is from our perspective. As Paul said, at this point in our societies, we probably just can't see it from another perspective, but that doesn't make our perspective "Right". It is just right for us. The universals that we were exploring about "love of life" gets turned into "love of OUR life" which inescapably leads to problems with "THOSE PEOPLE's lives" Again, it often comes back to resources and territory, and the group morals mold to the group needs. Trying to apply our system to their lives (with bombs if need be) works to some extent, especially from our perspective, so shouldn't it work for them?
When we kill in Iraq, we think it is different than when Russians kill in Chechnya but a Putin speach sounds identical to a Bush speach, and they have had far mor 9/11's. "We" thought the actions of Osama were heroic when he fought against the Soviets when they held Afghanistan.
I know my tone has turned political, but shaping opinions (morals?) in large groups is power, and politics is the art of power. Universal morals, ironically, are individual in nature. When you take them to the group level they have to differentiate... or you are in the same group. Follow my reasoning?
Eric, your response is interesting but doesn't answer the question I put to Paul, at least, not in light of the background of beliefs that Paul brings to the discussion, as he stated them here. So I'm still waiting to hear from Paul.
The question is not, what moral choices are more right or more wrong, but whether there is such a thing as right or wrong moral choices.
I think I was on the "same page" by the time I got to the last paragraph. Not to speak for Paul, but I would say there is such a thing as "right and wrong", but it is always in context.
I always thought the story of King Solomon ordering a baby sliced in two to solve a maternity debate, was a great example of how right and wrong are in context. It was the "right" decision, Wise and logical, and the womans decision to "give up" her own baby would seem "wrong" out of context.
Solomons wisdom "took it to next level", a step away from black and white.
Then I put the same question to you as well, Eric, and for the sake of making the issue clear, I want to stick with a topic that you call an "easy target":
Is it possible for you to say that al Qaeda did wrong when they killed those thousands of people on 9/11? If so, could you say it irrespective of culture? If not, what was it?
If you ask al Queda, it was right, if you ask me, it was wrong. That is in the context of culture. I said it al Qaeda an easy target, because in this case al Queda did the killing, and killing (just like abandoning your baby in the Solomon example) is wrong without context.
I SHOULD be able to say it was wrong irrespective of culture or context(and I can personally say that, with total moral conviction) but I am a product of my culture. I can see why a Solomon is the Sky, Wise and outside of context, could step back and get a better perspective, but in my experience people that talk to the sky tend to have their own culture reinforced, often beyond what they could rationalize individually. Allah knows what is good, even if it seems bad to an individual.
I can tell you all about MY views on what is right and wrong, and try to imagine if it changes in different context or culture. But when people suggest that they are privy to an "outside" perspective, and/or suggest that my perspective is a gift from this outsider, I know that some attempted persuasion is coming. If it is only an illusion that my viewpoint isn't skewed by Allah or God, then I am comfortable with the illusion of self-determination of morals, even if they know better.
Can you step out of your culture and tell me if bombing Iraq is "right" without context? I still don't want to get political, I am just changing the context surrounding the killing.
Looks like I better jump in here quickly. I've been at meetings all day today.
9/11 was wrong. But when I say it was wrong, I can only speak from my perspective, as a member of my society. But I still say it's wrong, not at all right. But the *context* in which that statement must be understood is a relativistic one. But that doesn't change the "amount" that I calculate that 9/11 was wrong. This is easy to do if one gives up the idea of some ultimate, absolute right or wrong for all people for all time.
It's not meaningless to ask whether something is right or wrong for *oneself* or for one's society. It is meaningless to try to say which of two differing moral systems is correct or supreme *outside* of merely following one's morality from one's society. From my society's viewpoint, 9/11 was wrong, but there is no way to transcend my local viewpoint to prove to Al Qaeda that 9/11 was wrong if Al Qaeda has a different moral system. I can only fight them, not prove them wrong.
Tom: to answer one of your questions specifically, I cannot say that there is any absolute, ultimate right or wrong; there is only right and wrong as my limited, local perspective teaches/indoctrinates me.
So both of you, Paul and Eric, if you had the opportunity to look Mohammed Atta al-Sayed in the eye, were he still alive, would say, "I think what you did was very wrong and evil, but if you disagree, I understand."
I don't think either of you lost family members in those attacks. I didn't either, though I am connected to several through mutual friends. I was in New York helping with counseling not long after it happened. It still smelled like smoke and ash, so much so that the smell came home on my clothes. I have strong and painful memories, but nothing like the pain of those who lost loved ones.
Imagine if you had been much closer to the events--if you'd lost a family member. Could you stand in the stench and horror of the fallen buildings and say to Atta or bin Laden, "What you did was wrong, but I understand you have a different opinion and of course, it was right for you"?
Eric, I'm not addressing the other questions you raised because the facts of the situation in Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, etc. are very much in dispute, and in light of that (or rather, in the mud of that), trying to sort through the ethical issues would take us much too far off topic. Also, even if the facts were crystal clear and undisputed, we would have to move to a higher level of ethical discussion than we're prepared for. For example, we couldn't talk about whether we're fighting a just war without first discussing whether there is such a thing as a just war. That's not the kind of discussion we need to work through here.
Your hypothetical is not fair to the rationality of the larger question. What I would say to the murderer of a family member would be colored by emotion and not reason. This is similar to thinking that the family of murder victim in a criminal case (say, a drive-by-shooting) should be the prosecution of the accused. We don't allow the family to do that because we'd only get revenge. Instead, we have rational, disinterested parties dispense justice (as best as is possible). You have to grant the grieving family a latitude to not think rationality because of their loss, but we don't mistake their irrationality for the rational consideration of justice.
Furthermore, it's not like we don't justify the killing of innocents for our sense of morals, either. Our society has no problem waging war (I'm not saying which war very pointedly) in which innocents are killed for a larger purpose. That's what Al Qaeda is doing. I think their larger purpose is nuts, so their killing is not justified, but that's from my limited perspective.
Just like Copernicus (?) showed that the Earth is not in a privileged position in the universe; just like Darwin (sorry) showed that the human species is not in a privledged position in the kingdom of life; just like Einstein showed that there is no privleged perspective in space and time, all one can do is measure what one's own local moral perspective says. There is no privleged solar system perspective, not privileged bilogical perspective, there is no privileged moral perspective. All one can do is to judge what one's morality shows, what one's limited, local position in time and space shows, and what one's biology shows.
Paul, without granting all that you've said here, let me ask a related question that has a lot less immediate emotional impact because of the passage of a half century.
Was the Holocaust wrong? Was it wrong from all cultural perspectives or only from some?
I don't know. That is an empirical question.
The larger point is that, in ultimate terms, there is no single practice or behavior that can be considered absolutely wrong. But, because all humans are part of the same species, partially driven by our biology, there may (as an empirical hypothesis) be some behaviors that will tend to be universally (or nearly) considered to be right or wrong. Murder is an obvious possibility. But this is at minimum a statistical observation. As to whether our biology demands a certain morality, rather than just influencing it (strongly or not), is an open question.
Sorry, the 09.15.05 - 9:43 pm post was mine.
I missed one of your questions, Tom. Just to be clear, I think the Holocaust was wrong. From my culture's morality, from many cultures' morality, but not from Hitler's. I would fight against it no less.
This discussion picks up again in the main blog here.
Commenting by HaloScan
