Morality Week: What I've Been Reading

Open Parachute has been featuring a couple posts on morality I rather like. The first breaks down a recent survey of “Religious and Social Attitudes of UK Christians in 2011.”

The survey asked the question “When it comes to right and wrong, which of the following if any, do you most look to for guidance?" The pie chart to the left breaks down the responses. Personally, I would have answered my moral sense, but also admit that my sense is guided by philosophy and reason. I doubt I could choose more than one answer, but I'm difficult like that.

I also enjoyed Open Parachute's post talking about the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Both the author of the book and the author of the blog are clearly more versed with this stuff than I. I may need to revisit Morality Week after I'm more well read.

I've also read the consensus statement signed by several scholars (list below) which came from a conference titled "The New Science of Morality." Personally, I don't know anything about which areas of the brain are responsible for morality, but otherwise I'd sign it too.

1. Morality is a natural phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon
2. Many of the psychological building blocks of morality are innate
3. Moral judgments are often made intuitively, with little deliberation or conscious weighing of evidence and alternatives
4. Conscious moral reasoning plays multiple roles in our moral lives
5. Moral judgments and values are often at odds with actual behavior
6. Many areas of the brain are recruited for moral cognition, yet there is no "moral center" in the brain
7. Morality varies across individuals and cultures
8. Moral systems support human flourishing, to varying degrees

Signed by:
Roy Baumeister, Florida State University
Paul Bloom, Yale University
Joshua Greene, Harvard University
Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia
Sam Harris, Project Reason
Joshua Knobe, Yale University
David Pizarro, Cornell University

Morality Week: The Story of the Moral

From the great Dog-Matic & the Beagle

In my last post I pointed out that Christians tend to argue one of two positions.

1. Religion provides our morality through scripture.
2. Morality is objective and we all have a God-given sense of right and wrong.

This comic makes a good point why stance one is faulty, but seemly argues in favor of stance two if you believe that we "just know" because God provided the knowledge.

My last post argues how stance two works itself around to stance one. Throughout "Morality Week" I've argued for reasoning as the source of our morality. We "just know" because deciding racism, rape, slavery, and child abuse is obviously wrong in most of the modern world. I doesn't require much analytical thinking, it's obvious. It's nice to think that these values are objectively wrong throughout the ages, but there is evidence to the contrary. Racism was common just a heartbeat ago in the grand time line of humanity. It still isn't valued in many locales worldwide. That same can be said for rape, slavery and child abuse. I'm glad we live in a progressive society where equality is valued by all and not just the oppressed, but it is far from a given.

Morality Week: Biblical "Morality"

Christians tend to argue one of two positions.

1. Religion provides our morality through scripture.
2. Morality is objective and we all have a God-given sense of right and wrong.

The first is pretty straight forward, and I’ve found that the second eventually leads to the first. For example, a theist can argue a moral value against rape and murder is universal and use this as evidence that the value originates with God. Yet the same theist sees a similar moral truth in an issue like homosexuality, which is far from universal. In the U.S., roughly half the population is in favor of gay marriage, which implies they don’t find gay sex immoral, while the other half votes against it. If we are supposed to have a sense of God’s morality, why do so many not have said sense on homosexuality? The theist may argue we simply ignore our sense in supporting gay rights, but in doing so they presume to know how everyone in the world feels. I can only know how I feel. I feel that hot man-on-man love (or better yet, woman-on-woman love) is not immoral.

Christians use the Bible to define their morality and claim the values within as moral truths. Below are moral values taken from the Bible that otherwise have no reasoning behind them.

• Having other gods is immoral.
• Making graven images is immoral.
• Using God’s name in vain is immoral.
• Working on Sunday is immoral.
• Fornication is immoral.
• Homosexuality is immoral.
• Masturbating is immoral.

I could get into the really strange morality-guiding rules in the Bible, (it’s immoral to wear wool and linen woven together apparently) but I’d rather stick with the stuff the least amount of theists will argue about. The first three would never be immoral if not for the Bible. They are simply rules to keep you believing once you already believe. The Sabbath rule is arbitrary no matter how you look at it. So far, the list has been taken directly from the gold standard of morality as argued by nearly every theist I’ve engaged--the ten commandments. The last three make certain sex acts immoral. Without the Bible, I can think of no reason for these to be immoral. If you have a reason, let me know in the comments.

As is the theme of Morality Week, morality should be based on reasoning, not based on a book written well over a thousand years ago. Equating scripture to moral truth, using moral truth to prove God, and using God to prove the validity of scripture is typical theist circular logic. Worse, the idea of moral truth needing no explaination is dangerous. A theist doesn’t just believe abortion in morally wrong, they know it is evil. This gnostic morality is what leads to clinic bombings. If I knew I was stopping evil at the pleasure of the Almighty, who know’s what I’d be tempted to do. I realize clinic bombers are a rare extreme, probably driven by a mental disease more than religion, but to a lesser extent this moral gnostism is what ruins many families with gay children.

Morality Week: The Ubiquitous Rule

Morality Week: Explaining to a True Believer Why He Shouldn't Kill Grandpa

The following is another pointless debate with a theist.

Apologist: What is the source or determinate of morality in a purely naturalistic reality? I understand that murder can be bad for society as a whole, and therefore a naturalistically adopted rule. But if benefit to the whole is the goal, shouldn’t we euthanize the elderly, physically disabled, etc? Society would benefit and thrive greatly without the burden of those who can not sexually reproduce or contribute labor or mental innovations. By what moral code do you defend the life of a person who is unable to contribute to society sexually, mentally or physically?

Grundy: The majority of civilized people defend the life of the elderly, myself included, because humanity is sympathetic to the Golden Rule. We love our grandparents and we know we will one day become old, so we want old people in general protected. I would never want the elderly euthanized because I know and care about old people and I wouldn’t want them euthanized. I know I will one day become old and don’t want to set the example that would let me be euthanized. I’ve met a bunch of people in my life and the vast majority of them are decent so it is reasonable to assume that a random stranger who is old or disabled is likewise someone decent and should not be put down. Why wouldn’t you euthanize the elderly?

Apologist: The reason I wouldn’t pull the plug is because God teaches us that all human life is intrinsically valuable. It has no relationship to what I think about the persons worth to me or others. And I would defend these by stating that I believe God is the standard of morality in the universe. So you would not rid society of the noncontributor, but under what standard could you argue to someone else who wanted to, that they shouldn’t?

Grundy: I already provided some perfectly acceptable reasons for why we shouldn’t euthanize the elderly that could easily be explained to anyone. Your single reason would never work on someone who is an atheist. So my reasons are more likely to convince the most people...assuming you find many people who don’t already have similar reasons.

I have a reason for every moral choice I make. To say that God gave you your morality is to say that there is no reason behind it. You are saying morality is completely arbitrary. I know that isn’t true for me and I doubt it is true for anyone.

Apologist: To say that God gave us morality is the only reason to embrace it. If you have to have reasons to be moral then it isn't morality. You simply weigh the pros and cons. So you would never be able to tell someone that anything is wrong, and that is reason enough not to do it. Morality is a standard of truth about what is right or wrong, not beneficial or diminutive.

Grundy: Morality is adherence to a moral code, not God. Individuals or societies can have moral codes--The Golden Rule is an example of a moral code that pops up organically in many societies and was part of my reasoning to not shut down nursing homes. This action would be wrong according to my moral code. Is it wrong to the universe’s moral code? Or God’s? I don’t believe it can be because the universe has no moral code and God may or may not if he even exists--which I think is very unlikely.

It is better to have reasons for what we do when the alternative is following arbitrary values of right and wrong. I can explain why rape and murder is wrong on a deeper level than “God made it so.” Telling someone to not do something is one thing. But when they ask why, your plan is to say "because God says so." That reasoning works for children, but not for me.Why didn’t God make rape and murder right? Did God have a reason for what is right and what is wrong? If so, then we can discover the same reason and cut out the middle deity. If not, then it is arbitrary.

Morality Week: A Moral Obligation to Ourselves

This week I'm going to be talking about my views on morality and specifically voicing objections to "moral truth" as an argument for the existence of God. I currently have multiple debates logged on the subject and will be drawing on them as prompts to flesh out my position. I'll round out the week with a post summing up morality as I see it. Should be fun, right? Right!

The following is a question from an apologist arguing that morality is objective and that moral truths can only come from God: “Do we have a moral obligation to be fair, or to act in our best interest, or to refrain from killing, stealing, etc.?”

Our moral obligation is not to a higher power, it is an obligation to our own happiness, and in some cases, our survival.

Imagine a grouping a strange humans before modern civilization. Let’s say that they start off on the wrong foot and engage in a fight to the death. The surviving alpha male has a few kids with the women he’s won. After all the pain and bloodshed, do you think he’d show his offspring to avoid the similar fights to the death in the future? Maybe, maybe not. But if he doesn’t this will repeat until some surviving family unit finally notices that more can be accomplished by teaming up with other family units--even if the only goal is to kill a larger rival tribe. Eventually other tribes unite until they have no reason to kill others. With their needs net, and considering that engaging in combat is costly to all parties involved, this pointless killing will become more and more rare.

Enough of these interactions lead to the smartest (those who know that combat should be avoided unless necessary) survive while others don’t. The genes that lend themselves to this personality trait get passed down while most of the others die out. These genes govern our empathy, instinct, intuition and other matters of thought that are not analytical. This is how we know right from wrong without sitting down and thinking about each moral choice. However, if we did sit to think about it, we can always come to a reason why the right choice is the right choice.

The apologist admits that this could explain how a "sense of morality" would emerge spontaneously within a civilization, but it doesn't explain the existence of moral values themselves. He asks, "Do moral values exist whether we believe in them or not?"

I agree with the traditional view of social scientists that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative. Our current moral values would not exist if we didn't believe in them, but if that was the case we would believe in other moral values. Some moral values are unlikely to change, not because they are intrinsically right as set by God or some law of the universe, rather because any other value would negatively affect the group that holds the moral value--the group in question could be a certain culture, a country, humanity as a whole, a pod of dolphins, whatever. Valuing human life, or if you prefer the Biblical "thou shalt not kill," is an example of a moral value that is unlikely to ever change, making it seem objective.

Who cares if you’re born that way?

I recently read that Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon said in an interview that her homosexuality was a choice. Not surprisingly, this got the various gay rights groups flustered seeing how their campaign against right-wing oppression partially depends on homosexuality not being a choice. According to them, gays were, are, and forever will be born that way.

Even though no “gay gene” has been found, I accept that for many, homosexuality is not a choice. I have no reason to disbelieve such a claim, after all, I didn’t choose to be heterosexual. That said, I am confused as to why GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) and others would even care about the “born this way” mantra. It’s a decent song, but a lousy defense.

If it was determined that gays were biologically predisposed to be gay, I wouldn’t be surprised if further research would find pedophiles have a genetic attraction to young people. Or even that serial killers are wired to get off on killing. (In fact, research may already show this.) Being born with a tendency towards a behavior doesn’t give you carte blanche to carry out said behavior...so what’s the point?

Homosexuality shouldn’t need a defense. Being gay isn’t wrong because it is genetic. It isn’t wrong because there is no victim. Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect society. To be honest, being gay isn’t right either. It is morally neutral, just like being straight. Pedophilia is wrong because children can’t understand consent in terms of their own sexuality. They are taken advantage of and thereby victims. And serial killing is wrong for obvious reasons.

GLAD should hope we don’t find a gene (or series of genes) for homosexuality. While there is no secular reason to condemn gays, the holy books say different. The believers could be faced with a crisis of faith and conscience in deciding whether or not to abort their unborn gay child. I wonder which hypocrisy they would embrace.