Help. The comments and questions are many and complex, although there are plainly some common themes. I prefer just now to focus on one that I take issue with and try and explore it with a degree of thoroughness. Hopefully doing this will shed light on some of the surrounding comments - and no doubt spawn other qs and comments. B and J, I'll say now I did ask a few other guys from church if they wd like to have a look and contribute; so far just Paul has come forward (I hope Jimmy will return - his take is refreshing). One other was up for the challenge, but he has other commitments like small kids which have no doubt prevented him.
Here's one of the most striking recent comments, from B: 'I don’t believe in evil as such, and in a society of Nazis, Hitler was not “evil”. His actions do disgust me, but would they if I had been brought up in the Hitler youth?' Interesting. I wonder if closer examination of the Hitler case will shed any light here. 'In a society of Nazis, Hitler was not evil'. Now I don't know much about the Third Reich, but for starters, wasn't Hitler more of a leader than follower in the rise of Nazism? Was it not his perversely thought-out application of the philosophy of Nietzche (to name the one I'm aware of) in particular what led to the holocaust? Was not the combination of his own distorted thinking, charisma and political power at the root of the madness? Of course he himself was subject to an upbringing and influences. The core of the question, for him and us, is, external influences notwithstanding, did he make personal independent choices, with at least some degree of clear-sightedness, that led to that momentous evil? And in following him, did the Hitler youth too? Particularly in light of subsequent German shame over the H, is it not plausible that they - and us - have an innate moral sense that in Hitler's followers was to some extent suppressed or even crushed?
And on what basis, B, do you feel 'disgust' at what he did - an emotive word - if not on that of a perceived real standard?
Other big qs have been raised, esp both B and J's on morality in the bible on which there's plenty to be said (and I won't foget the parallel universe one either J), but I want to push this root one about an ulimate moral sense a bit further. It's also crossed my mind how relatively easy it is to discuss this from our cosy perspective. I wonder how dispassionate you could be discussing the non-existence of real evil, or the moral sense being merely an evolutionary feature, if it had been someone you love, or you yourself, in the gas chamber?
Lastly just now, I like to give credit where credit's due: TGD is quite gripping - for various reasons. It's written with clarity and wit (and not a little sarcasm: 'Who cares?' 'Yeah right' and 'Dream on' stand out so far). I'm tempted to say, it's bonkers, but well-written bonkers. But no - I do think it requires serious engagement. So don't think I'm dismissive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
11 comments:
To ponder further:
J: We are influenced heavily by our instincts, emotions, and others around us. As Billy has said, there are sound evolutionary reasons for all of this. But where do you think this ultimate moral standard comes from?
B: The advantage of a sense of right and wrong is that it allows you to conform to the “normal” standards of society.
From an absolutists point of view, it should either be right or wrong - full stop.
I believe in “morality”, but it is a relative thing that is fluid.
Bruce,
Glad you are enjoyong TGD.
The question of how Hitler arrived at his position is not really relevant to the fact that he was able to influence the minds and thinking of those around him. That is a common theme in religion too. Many believed in him absolutely. Look at what has happened with the indoctrination of child soldiers in Africa. To suggest that they had free will to make the choice implies a set of internal moral standard to compare against. You dont back this up. Out of interest, what do you actually consider an example of a moral absolute, and what evidence do you have to back it up?
Billy
PS Have I met Paul?
PPS We can call in the reserves too Jonathan is the RDF deity after all :-)
Bruce-
Remember that the Nazis ruled Germany for only twelve years, although they had influence for about a decade prior to that. It can be reasoned that to a certain extent, the regret of some of the older Germans was more of a result of the clash between their morality and culture pre and during Hitler's reign. I wonder how the youngest Germans, raised and taught to despise the Jews, felt about it.
Billy also said yesterday that evolution could select for those who do not go around killing indiscriminately, or for those who have repugnance towards killing. This, I think, is also a facet of it.
While it is possible that everyone has an innate moral sense, there are evolutionary explanations, and certainly no suggestion of an ultimate moral standard that everyone shares.
I'll leave it there for now.
Jonathan.
PS- perhaps I can recruit some acolytes. Billy, I could invite my High Priest Philip. Actually, to hell with the invite. I'll command him.
Jonathan,
I think your high priest would like this, but could you remind him that it is two lumps of sugar for me.
I'll bring the gay fruit flies (for the confused, behavioural traits can be absolutely genetically determined (although most lie somewhere on the nature/nurture spectrum. This challenges concepts of free will, but lets stick with morality for now))
Billy
Bruce suggested I join in, so here
goes.
Good and Evil, in my view, require a metaphysical perspective of some kind; the alternative is that we are left with personal tastes or group consensus effects which aren't absolutes and can't be discussed as if they were. "Morality", let's recall, originally just meant what was the custom in a particular city state.
I have a somewhat Platonic view of goodness - we all of us have some intuition about it, but there is an absolute Goodness which we are dimly and variously trying to perceive, and it also happens to be attached to God. These are statements of faith and are certainly not "scientific". Science doesn't have the conceptualities to deal with goodness in any kind of absolute sense - possibly not in any real sense - I think even Dawkins admits this. Within the above framework Hitler was certainly evil.
Right and wrong are good and evil acted out. There is a contextual element here but with its limits.
Also, I go along with the view that evil is a distortion or absence of goodness (just as cold is simply the absence of heat) rather than a Platonic entity in its own right.
Hi Peter,
Do you have any evidece of an absolute goodness? It seems to me people largely do what suits them. I have a real problem when people claim this absolute goodness is the god of the bible. I dont consider it good to kill children for example. Can you explain why an absolute goodness would kill the first born of Egypt or order the killing of children in jericho?
Surely science or reason have roles in investigating perceptions of what is good and bad, as well as explaining how these perceptions come about - wouldn't you agree?
Cheers
Billy
"I dont consider it good to kill children for example."
Hi Billy. Am thinking about that statement. You are hinting at two principles: Justice (regarding the innocence of children) and Goodness (regarding the degree of positive effect the action has on people who have the potential to experience it).
Consider this situation:
A mother nursing a baby is one of 10 civilians hiding from the rebel soldiers. If they are caught it means almost certain execution for all the civilians.
When the rebels are nearby, the baby begins to cry inconsolably, and is sure to alert the soldiers to their position.
There are two options available to the mother.
1. She refuses to silence the baby, resulting in the death of her whole group.
2. She smothers the baby and thereby saves the lives of her fellow civilians.
The first result is caused by an act of selfishness, and while it is based on "love" (and no matter how you could sympathise with her situation) it still must be called "bad" (or "wrong").
The second is an act of sacrifice, showing selfless love, thereby making it "good" (or "right") despite the tragedy of the situation.
I'm merely illustrating that it's not useful to talk about "killing children" as something that can be classified as being good or bad. An actions "goodness" depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding, and the reasons behind, an action. Therefore we might judge something to be bad based on our own understanding of the circumstances, but it may be an entirely wrong judgement. You use death as the "ultimate extreme" of example, because to the atheist, there is nothing beyond death. Yet were there to be life after death, the perspective on the circumstances (and therefore the judgement) must change.
You suggest that God is not absolutely Good because he allows (and in some cases causes) the death of innocent children. If God were a man, I would agree with you. But he is absolutely NOT a man, and thereby his justice is not bound by the same limitations of earthly justice.
-Only- a God of justice would be able to allow the killing of innocents, because he is the only one who would be capable of awarding absolute justice, outside the constraints of earthly limitations. Those who lose a penny don't regret its loss when they are given a pound.
Someone who has ruled out the possibility of life after death will not countenance the possibility of ultimate, perfect,reparatory justice: but this is fundamental to a Christian's beliefs. They believe that ultimate and perfect justice will be experienced by every single member of the human race, with the only exception being those under grace. With an eternal perspective, some things you regard as important suddenly become less so.
Hi Beat attitude,
Hi Billy. Am thinking about that statement. You are hinting at two principles: Justice (regarding the innocence of children) and Goodness (regarding the degree of positive effect the action has on people who have the potential to experience it).
Not necessarily. It can be an judgement based on emotion, empathy etc. We are emotional beings, but as I have also said elsewhere, these emotions are grounded in biology and serve useful functions – and like any biological mechanism, they can also malfunction.
Consider this situation:…… The first result is caused by an act of selfishness, and while it is based on "love" (and no matter how you could sympathise with her situation) it still must be called "bad" (or "wrong").
The second is an act of sacrifice, showing selfless love, thereby making it "good" (or "right") despite the tragedy of the situation.
Actually, I could turn that round and say that the first one is neither selfless or selfish. The second could be selfish because it could be about saving your own skin. The point is that there is no moral absolute by which to make a decision here – which is what Bruce was initially proposing. I was actually thinking of a similar situation: is it “right” for a starving man to steal food from a rich man? For me it is right. If you hold to the 10 commandments, it is wrong. This merely illustrates that there is no unifying moral law as Bruce tried to claim as evidence for god’s existence
I'm merely illustrating that it's not useful to talk about "killing children" as something that can be classified as being good or bad. An actions "goodness" depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding, and the reasons behind, an action.
I agree, but morality in this case is subjective and not absolute – as Bruce is claiming.
Therefore we might judge something to be bad based on our own understanding of the circumstances
Or based on our up bringing/prejdices – again no evidence of universal moral absolutes
, but it may be an entirely wrong judgement.
This assumes a higher standard by which to compare with. The point is, that there is no evidence of this standard; therefore, we conclude there is no such standard – unless evidence says otherwise. I also don’t see how if such a standard existed though that it would point to a god – but in the absence of evidence it is a somewhat irrelevant point.
You use death as the "ultimate extreme" of example, because to the atheist, there is nothing beyond death.
Actually, it was the first example that came to mind that should be generally accepted amongst people in this discussion.
Yet were there to be life after death, the perspective on the circumstances
I agree, but in the absence of evidence that this is a case, this would only be a hypothetical discussion
(and therefore the judgement) must change.
I disagree with this part – speaking hypothetically- an afterlife need not conform to one of the Christian views on the subject.
You suggest that God is not absolutely Good because he allows (and in some cases causes) the death of innocent children. If God were a man, I would agree with you. But he is absolutely NOT a man, and thereby his justice is not bound by the same limitations of earthly justice.
A couple of points here:
1. I make judgements based on my own “moral values” in this regard, and not against an absolute standard – further refuting the claim that we get our standards from a lawgiver.
2. Your answer presupposes the existence of the lawgiver and gives him particular qualities. You cannot show that he exists and you just accept that he can not be bad. That is circular reasoning. The things he had done/commanded are not in the spirit of the ideas of love and respect for your fellow man – as Jonathan or I understand it, and I suspect you do too by saying he would be bad if he were a man. It appears the only way to deal with the discrepancy is to assume god knows better. So, if there is a claim that there is an absolute source of law and justice, it appears to be a point of faith despite the evidence, and not an argument that god exists.
-Only- a God of justice would be able to allow the killing of innocents, because he is the only one who would be capable of awarding absolute justice, outside the constraints of earthly limitations.
I disagree with this point. A god who is evil, or doesn’t care would also fit the bill. How do you link allowing “evil” with an ability to deal out justice? .
Those who lose a penny don't regret its loss when they are given a pound.
I’m reminded of Job here. His family were killed, and as compensation he was given even more beautiful children. I don’t see how that makes everything all right.
Someone who has ruled out the possibility of life after death will not countenance the possibility of ultimate, perfect,reparatory justice:
This is a typical Christian mischaracterisation of Atheists. We do not rule out the possibility. We have no reason to believe in it, but would do so if some came our way (I’m sure Jonathan will back me up here)
but this is fundamental to a Christian's beliefs. They believe that ultimate and perfect justice will be experienced by every single member of the human race, with the only exception being those under grace. With an eternal perspective, some things you regard as important suddenly become less so.
I know that, but it does not provide evidence that god exists. I actually know of at least one Christian who believes because she wants certain people punished, which doesn’t sound very “Christian” to me.
Cheers
Billy
PS Thankfully not as long as your correspondance with Kendo (for now)
PPS,Jonathan, you may have to unleash your high priest. With the Exception of Mark T, the guys on this blog give a better argument than the ones who come on Richard's
Beat Attitude-
I have to support Billy here. Speaking for myself, I certainly haven't ruled out the possibility of a life after death. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that leads me to believe that one exists (if I had, I'd probably still be a Christian). The whole Christian concept of an afterlife is a morass of contradictions.
But while I don't believe in the afterlife at the moment, if there was evidence of it I might change my mind. Most atheists do not hate God, and have not ruled him/her out absolutely. We have just looked at the evidence and found it lacking. Personally, I have an open mind, and I think Billy does too. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here!
However, if there were evidence the afterlife existed, how would that support the idea of ultimate, reparatory justice? You have no idea what the afterlife is like. Ask fifteen different people what they think it is like, and you will get fifteen different answers.
Jonathan.
PS- hopefully you and the others will stick around while Bruce licks his wounds in France!
PPS- Billy, I have already summoned Philip. He said he'd have a look at the site and see if he can lend his "crazy perspective"- his words. I might summon Lee as well.
I'm on here because I'm avoiding my duties! Following an enjoyable two weeks of sunshine,far away from internet-land, it's a real rub to have to get back to things I have to do. But I'll check in from time to time. Nice to meet you all in the meantime.
Anyone seen this? Monkeys show a sense of justice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3116678.stm
Post a Comment