The supremacy of the ethical

[Alaric]

Imagine that you are walking down the street with a friend. Your friend stretches, takes a contented look around, produces a knife from his inner jacket pocket and says, "You know, I think I'll go over and kill that guy over there. Be back in a sec." Now freeze that image.

What would your reaction to this be? I doubt anyone would just say "Alright, I'll just wait over here." Most would feel that the act of killing some random person was deeply wrong - that is, immoral. Why? How do you justify that belief? Let's say you did think it was wrong. What would you do in this situation? Some options:

1. Do nothing. Perhaps you feel that although you think the killing is wrong, it does not involve you; your opinion is as valid as your friend's, and you have no right to impose your will over him and restrict his freedom. And although you wouldn't like to be killed, you can't know that the victim feels that way too.

2. Shout over to the intended victim about what your friend intends. Although you should respect your friend's freedom to do what he wants, you deem it necessary that the target knows what is about to befall him, so that he has as much information to react in the way that he sees fit.

3. Whip out your Bible. You seem to recall it saying something about killing...ah yes, one of the Ten Commandments. You show it to your friend, informing him that killing is not allowed by God (or the teachings of whatever other religion you happen to believe). You warn him of hell and how nasty it is/explain how you should do what God wants because He loves you/warn of the negative karma you will build up.

4. Recite the local laws and penal code. You remind your friend that he would be breaking the law, and that he will likely receive a harsh punishment for his act.

5. Wrestle your friend to the ground, take the knife, and cut his throat. Obviously your friend was actually evil, as either you know right from wrong instinctively or you don't, and your friend obviously didn't; you, however, do.

6. Stop your friend and impress upon him your reasons for believing that killing strangers is wrong (then proceed to 7).
The way you do this is:
6a You argue for the rights of each individual to live free from interference from others.
6b You argue that a society in which people can kill anyone they like is heading for anarchy and dissolution, to the detriment of everyone.
6c You argue that the relatives of the target would likely be devastated at losing him.
6d You argue that the stranger might be a great thinker or piano virtuoso or know the best jokes and that you need to know your victim better first or you might end up killing someone who is useful to society.
6e You argue that only people that are especially intelligent/old/well-versed in the ancient customs/part of the ruling class/part of the judiciary have the priviledge of killing, and your friend is not any of those, therefore he cannot know whether his action is good or not.
6f You ask him whether he himself would appreciate it if someone were to come over and kill him or someone he loves; and you ask him about the kind of society he envisages as the perfect society, and how his act fits in with these beliefs.

7. You're discussing the issue.
7a He doesn't convince you, but you can't convince him. You let him proceed.
7b He doesn't convince you, but you can't convince him. You both fight for the knife - you feel too strongly that you are right.
7c He claims that he has the ability to see demons in disguise, and that the stranger is one of them; and he seems honest, so you take the chance that he's right, because it would be terrible if he was and you stopped him.

8. You wave your arms and cry and yell that your friend is just wrong because killing is just wrong and although you don't know why you just know that it is from the incomprehensible feeling you have deep inside and it's all very terrible.

(I'll reserve the right to add any others into the post if I feel the need to, but I will make it clear what I've added. Feel free to suggest and criticize.)

Think about these scenarios for a second. What kind of reaction would you most identify with or appreciate; how would you want people in your society to react? How should we as a society deal with moral issues? What part does religion and spirituality have in answering these questions?

 

[Master Vigil]

this is quite simple. ALL life is precious and none of us have the right to take it. Pretty simple to me.

 

[painted wolf]

I would ask him why he wanted to kill the man.
If the answer was just because.. I would stop him.
Killing for pleasure is one of the 'evils' that my religion takes very seriously.
if the answer was reasonable (the man killed his sister), I would advise against it, suggest that the law handle it first. Then if all elce fails then perhaps just a maiming...
In the end it would be up to him. If he was willing to suffer the concequences of his actions then so be it. In the end we are all responcible for our own actions.

wa:-do

 

[Alaric]

Vigil,
Why?

Painted Wolf,
Are you against killing because your religion is, OR do you have your own reasons for it? If you believe that we are all responsible for our own actions, why?
If your religion was against something that you thought was alright (or the other way around), what would take precedence: your own views, or those of your religion?

 

[Master Vigil]

a religion is against something because the founder of that religion was. we all are victims of circumstance. everyones self takes precedence over religion all the time. but religion also always influences the self. you might even think that religion doesnt affect you being that you are atheist. however, why are you atheist? i would bet that religion affecting you in some way that made you question it. so your life has been influenced by some religion.

you ask why, i ask why not. we keep asking the same question until we both forget the original question. and then we finally figure out that we both have the same idea. why do you ask these trivial questions. what are you trying to prove.

 

[Engyo]

Alaric -

I don't understand your point - especially what any of this has to do with being atheist or not.

As regards the scenario - wouldn't a slightly more realistic situation be more illuminating? A hypothetical situation which has a very small chance of ever occuring doesn't really cause me to examine my day-to-day reactions to real situations in my life, which I am guessing was more or less your point. If I guessed wrong, apologies.

 

[Alaric]

Engyo & Vigil,
Maybe a mistake - I was planning on a big explanation but got a bit carried away with the example, then ran out of time (the library was closing). I was just hoping that people would take up the challenge so I could demonstrate my point instead of hoping that people will read a long post - but I will explain myself shortly.

As far as the scenario, it's important to use examples that are as clear as possible - the points could technically be applied to any situation requiring application of morality, but the lines would be a lot fuzzier. The point of the scenario was to investigate the reasoning behind our moral values - I don't care what people feel, I care how they justify their actions, to themselves and others. What is everyone's fundamental core values upon which all their value judgements and beliefs on right and wrong are based?

 

[Engyo]

Alaric-

What is everyone's fundamental core values upon which all their value judgements and beliefs on right and wrong are based?

OK, that's an entirely different question!

I think there are several issues here. First, how many people actually take out these fundamental values, examine and adjust them? I feel that most people absorb these in childhood as part of growing up in their particular environment. Many accept these as learned and never examine them (please understand I am not judging this as good or bad).

Some people do examine and revise their fundamental core values, but I think the percentage is small. Many people's professed values and what their behavior exhibits differ to varying degrees. I may say that I hold a certain value, but if I haven't internalized it, I probably won't exhibit this value, particularly in a hurry or under stress.

Third, situations differ. One may make a certain decision if one is pressed for time, and a totally different decision if time for reflection, discusion, or guidance is available. If I must decide NOW, I have to go by gut feel, and however much I have internalized my professed values (as above). If I have time to go over the ramifications and think the situation through I can align my response with my professed values (thus helping internalize them). I may have time to look for guidance, whether from an advisor or confidant, or from some historical or scriptural source. All of this possibly leads to me making a very different decision than if I must do it NOW.

 

[Alaric]

Yes, but that's why I said to freeze the image. But generally, people do the same no matter how much time they have.

The different reactions to the situation are intended to illustrate different types of people:
1 is the unrealistically sociopathic anarchist, 2 you might call an anarcho-liberal, 3 is the religious fundamentalist who thinks that humanity can't itself know right from wrong, 4 is the strict conservative who thinks that the society's collective and historical understanding of right and wrong trumps personal conviction, and appeals to fear of punishment rather than pity for the victim, 5 is an extreme example of a moral absolutist, 6 is someone who relies on empathy and human understanding to tackle the situation, a-f reflecting different priorities. 7 invites a discussion on personal conviction. And 8 is intended to mock fools who don't think but still insist on getting their way. There is a method to my madness!

My personal opinion is that only 6f is truly viable, since even 6a-e are more personal opinions, although I do agree with them too.

 

[painted wolf]

I am aginst taking a life, any life, for foolish reasons. It is wrong and wastefull. This is both a personal and religious issue with me. For me thier is a line between nessesity (killing for food) and foolishness (because you find it fun).
My religion is very open, we haven't got a 'sin' complex like most religons do. Its more about how to live in ballance then 'dont do this and dont do that'.
Punnishing someone who has done a hurtful thing to another was a community event. If you hurt one person in the community you hurt everyone. Most often the pushisments for realy bad things were banishment, death if you returned.
Often banishment was practically a death sentance.

as for everyone being responcible for their own actions... arn't they?
Can I truly stop someone from doing something they want to do? I can talk and I can beg but in the end the choise is up to them. Perhaps I can stop them phiisically but for how long? If they are determined to do this thing then they will just wait untill I'm not there. The best I can hope for is to change thier heart.
Besides personal responcibility is the only true mesure of a persons 'soul' if you will.

crying "Its not my fault, they made me do it" is bunk.

wa:-do

 

[Death]

this is quite simple. ALL life is precious and none of us have the right to take it. Pretty simple to me.

Nonsense, we can take life if the situation requires it. Your body does it all the time without you even realising it.

Death is a necessity, we would have to evaluate whether the taking of life in this case was necessary, which it obviously isn't.

Why does it feel bad? We're a social animal and wanting nonthreatening or otherwise useful or rather, not abusive members of society to survive is part of that. That's why it feels bad.

So that's why murder is both emotionally wrong and ethically wrong from a less emotional stance.

1. Do nothing. Perhaps you feel that although you think the killing is wrong, it does not involve you; your opinion is as valid as your friend's, and you have no right to impose your will over him and restrict his freedom. And although you wouldn't like to be killed, you can't know that the victim feels that way too.

No, that's an equivocation fallacy. His view is not justified.

2. Shout over to the intended victim about what your friend intends. Although you should respect your friend's freedom to do what he wants, you deem it necessary that the target knows what is about to befall him, so that he has as much information to react in the way that he sees fit.

Due to my murderous friend having a weapon, I probably do this. Not out of respecting his freedom, simply looking out for my own ***.

3. Whip out your Bible. You seem to recall it saying something about killing...ah yes, one of the Ten Commandments. You show it to your friend, informing him that killing is not allowed by God (or the teachings of whatever other religion you happen to believe). You warn him of hell and how nasty it is/explain how you should do what God wants because He loves you/warn of the negative karma you will build up.

If this would stop the friend, it would be a means to an end and I would do it.

4. Recite the local laws and penal code. You remind your friend that he would be breaking the law, and that he will likely receive a harsh punishment for his act.

See above.

5. Wrestle your friend to the ground, take the knife, and cut his throat. Obviously your friend was actually evil, as either you know right from wrong instinctively or you don't, and your friend obviously didn't; you, however, do.

If the stranger is iin immediate danger, I would like to think I would do something like this, although a few stabwounds to some joints would probably prevent him acting violently without the need for throat cutting.

6a You argue for the rights of each individual to live free from interference from others.

No, I argue necessity of the action vs person's inherent rights.

6b You argue that a society in which people can kill anyone they like is heading for anarchy and dissolution, to the detriment of everyone.

No, because this is a red herring.

6c You argue that the relatives of the target would likely be devastated at losing him.

Yep.

6d You argue that the stranger might be a great thinker or piano virtuoso or know the best jokes and that you need to know your victim better first or you might end up killing someone who is useful to society.
6e You argue that only people that are especially intelligent/old/well-versed in the ancient customs/part of the ruling class/part of the judiciary have the priviledge of killing, and your friend is not any of those, therefore he cannot know whether his action is good or not.

No.

6f You ask him whether he himself would appreciate it if someone were to come over and kill him or someone he loves

If i think it will stop him, yes.

7. You're discussing the issue.
7a He doesn't convince you, but you can't convince him. You let him proceed.

No.

7b He doesn't convince you, but you can't convince him. You both fight for the knife - you feel too strongly that you are right.

If the situation requires it.

7c He claims that he has the ability to see demons in disguise, and that the stranger is one of them; and he seems honest, so you take the chance that he's right, because it would be terrible if he was and you stopped him.

No.

How should we as a society deal with moral issues?

Society's moral should be that everyone is equally free to enjoy life so long as it doesn't infringe on others freedoms and enjoyment of life. Laws should then be made for the equal members of society to subscribe to if they wish to live there, laws to encourage peace and freedom and equality. If people don't wish to conform to the morality of equality and freedom, they are entitled to, however the society has the right to stop them if they start infringing on anyone else's freedom and equality.

What part does religion and spirituality have in answering these questions?

Spirituality is a subjective emotional subject that gets grouped with religion as religion was established to use and abuse spiritual feelings for either theirs or society's own good. Essentially a load of laws and restrictions added to the society's. Sometime's they're in direct conflict with equality and freedom, which is why governance must remain secular. In addition, religion's authority has never been justified, whereas a democratic secular one is.

 

[Master Vigil]

I'm sorry death, this is what i meant...

this is quite simple. ALL life is precious and none of us have the right to take it "unnecessarilly." Pretty simple to me.

However, I find it hard to say that we can judge who should live and who should die. I don't believe we are worthy of such an ability.

however, i do understand that death is part of balance and will happen, thats pretty obvious. And i understand that death is needed for survival. But in some cases, I don't believe we as humans can judge if another human should die or not. For life, is in itself, precious.

 

[Alaric]

Thanks for the responses.

I used the example to highlight the different ways people can justify their beliefs. Your view on this example and others reflect your core priorities, and they aren't 'simple' or 'obvious' at all - some value freedom and independence to the point of not acknowledging any need for intervening to prevent others getting hurt or expecting others to do the same for them; to them, good is about freedom and bad is about restriction. This is not necessary 'right' in itself, it's just a point of view, although many people would call this attitude 'evil' if it meant just ignoring crimes to others. Your moral views depend on your values, and your values are subjective, so how on earth do we make society work?

The religious might say that there is one true code of ethics that everyone must obey. God proscribed it, God is perfect, therefore God must be obeyed. Whether you would necessarily agree independently of these laws is irrelevant - you should just be happy you have them. Many also claim that because humans are flawed, and cannot come even remotely close to understanding the truth, then we must 'submit to God' and let His Word show us the way.

But can this be justified? In the example, option 3 was to whip out the Bible or resort to other religious teachings to make your point. What does this say about you if you do it? Certainly that you have complete trust in those teachings, but the fact that you don't explain them using the methods in option 6 shows that you either don't understand the consequences of the murder on others, or that you don't place importance to that understanding or to feelings of empathy.

Pretty much the same goes for those invoking the law, or emotion to make their case. It isn't very reassuring if the only reason you act in a socially acceptable way is because you don't want to get caught or because you have complete trust in the laws of your society.

But the real problem is that your religion, or your society's laws, may not be quite right. After all, there are a lot of them out there. Plus, each teaching is open to multiple interpretations. How do we determine which one is right? And until then, how do we decide on the rules by which to live by?

So we're forced to admit our imperfect knowledge and understanding. But we should also acknowledge our individuality in the way in which we understand the world, given that my desires and fears and priorities are not entirely the same as the next person's, but are equally important. Given these considerations, morality must be personally justifiable, and you must be held responsible for your beliefs. That's fine then, but we also need to make society work. So, we get together and debate our different views and try to come up with some kind of general code of ethics that everyone can at least accept, even if they don't love it. And when debating these views, we refer both to evidence of consequences and to personal desires. We can not, however, argue our case based on emotional conviction, tradition, or claims of divine revelation. No matter what the truth is in these regards, we are required to use reason and argument to make our case, not forgetting that personal desires are important. These personal desires make it vital that our morality allows for personal freedom and expression as much as possible.

Therefore - no matter what the reality, no matter which god exists, no matter whether only He knows the perfect way of behaving, no matter how accurate your intuition, no matter how much you love and admire the doctrines of your forefathers, you are required to base your morals on reason - i.e. you use reason to determine the right way of behaving given your view of the world.

This might seem like a free-for-all, but I happen to like Kant's Categorical Imperative here - that we should all act as though the maxims of our actions could be made into universal laws in those situations. Basically, don't act unless you would want anyone else to act the same way in the same circumstance. This is just common sense - if you steal because you are poor, then it is because you think that it is okay in general for poor people to steal. If you kill someone because you feel like it, you are saying that it is okay for anyone to kill anyone else because they feel like it. And if you think that you are above such a moral code, you are saying that anyone else can also believe themselves above the moral code. We tend to agree with the principle that it is okay to stop someone doing something because a large proportion believe it's wrong even if the action of the person conforms to his own values and the C.I. - meaning we can accept that others would force us to conform to some extent. Applying the C.I. in society doesn't tell us whether to kill or not, but it does tell us to be just and fair and equal, which tends to dictate the individuals rules as people realize their usefulness and the common sense of certain general rules compared to others.

And because this is the only acceptable, justifiable concept of morality, only atheists, or those behaving like atheists, can be truly moral (although of course that doesn't mean atheists are necessarily moral). You are simply not moral if your morality is based on religion rather than an understanding of your own views, an understanding of the relationship between your actions and the rest of society, and an application of the C.I. God, Allah etc must simply accept that no-one is even allowed to do what He says just because He says it. This is the supremacy of the ethical - if you think God shows us the way, you must explain them as with any man-made law.

And thanks for reading!

 

[painted wolf]

I don't think I agree with this...

Just because one person says "killing is wrong because god says so" and the other person says "killing is wrong because I personally came to that conclusion" doesn't make one more valid than the other...

True morality comes from personal commitment.

Obviously not all Athiests are fair and equil nor are they all good with common sence. :mrgreen:
wa:-do

 

[Bendad]

We have a moral sense which is our inner barometer, allowing us to recognise between good and evil. We know that acts such as murder, vandalism, stealing and other recognised social crimes are wrong. Society strictly polices against these and there is an active deterrent against most of us committing such offences. Most people follow the general concensus in recognising these as unethical.

But softer acts, also of an unethical nature, can sometimes fall into a grey area. For example, we might rationalise that using a friend's wife for occasional sex is okay because their marriage has long gone stale, that it is reasonable to exaggerate deductions on our tax returns because we feel the government is overtaxing us, or it is alright to lie on a job application to increase our chances of getting a position since so many others are doing it. As long as we don't get caught we can always find ways of rationalising various little things we know in our hearts to be wrong.

In a world without any spiritual consequences, the policing of morality is dependent on either the law catching us or having a conscience that doesn't hide it's misdemeanours behind a litany of rationalisations. So more and more of us in our increasingly securalised world are tempted to get away with more and more little acts of dishonesty because others around us are all getting away with it, and the chances of getting caught are relatively slim as long as we are careful.

The difference of an ethical world backed-up behind a Divine justice (Heaven and Hell) is the sense that we can't really get away with doing the wrong thing, because we will all be accountable to a higher justice after death from which none of us can escape. Doing the right thing is one's insurance policy for the 'hereafter'. Yet, even if a 'hereafter' didn't exist, it would still be best for people to strive to be always ethical (honest and decent) since civilised behaviour is ultimately the survival code for any society where people want to live in peaceful cooperation with their neighbours. In other words, it makes good sense to try to do the right thing always.

 

[Alaric]

That is to say, God rewards the good guys after all; but that might tempt people not to fight for justice, or to not mind that others break the law, in the belief that they will all get their just deserts. Better, I think, to realise that we need ensure morality on earth, now, rather than to retreat into ours shells and gleefully and vengefully wait for Judgement Day.

 

[painted wolf]

Only the truly callous would sit back and not fight for justice because god will just handle it later.

Not all religions have a Judgement Day nor do they believe that god punnishes people with hell or rewards them heaven.

wa:-do

 

[Alaric]

Just because one person says "killing is wrong because god says so" and the other person says "killing is wrong because I personally came to that conclusion" doesn't make one more valid than the other...

Nonsense, because:

True morality comes from personal commitment.

:mrgreen:

Morality needs to be separate from religion. No one must ever do something just because God says so, no matter how convinced they are - otherwise, every time someone robbed a bank they could just declare that God made them do it, and we'd be forced to accept it. Wouldn't work, would it?

 

[BioMors]

The most fallacious aspect of absolute moral statements is that, unless followed through to an end, they inherently result in hypocrisy:

Unnecessary killing is wrong
Killing for pleasure is wrong
Etc.

I assume then, that you are all vegetarians? Modern discoveries regarding human nutrition have made any need for meat that may have existed 2,000 years ago obsolete in developed countries. Any eating of meat, then, is done merely for the pleasure of its taste and completely unnecessary.

Moral relativism, on the other hand, is essentially immune to such hypocrisy because something is right due to the fact one feels it is so.
“Just because” logic is not fallacious as Alaric seems to believe (I’ve read all of the posts in this thread but I may have missed something so pardon me if I have). Positive or negative reactions to circumstances are programmed into us through our life and it is by instinct that we experience moral revulsion to something- this is just as much a reason to disagree with an action as any logical argument is.
On that note, morals programmed into somebody through a religious upbringing are no different in chemical composition to those obtained any other way. Now when the thought process is interrupted and somebody indexes a handbook to check the rightness/wrongness of an action then it is different- but in most circumstances this isn’t the case, and in the circumstances it is, much the same interruption comes in when a secular moralist pulls out a calculator to figure out which action will cause less harm.

One thing that is different about atheistic morality in a social sense is that it is capable of evolving and changing more quickly with the times, and is simply better able to conform. However, this may not always be desirable in a relative moral sense- theoretically anything could become “moral” over centuries of atheist society without some strong backing of “laws” or “commandments” (or whatever you want to call them) that remain stable. That is exactly what the bibles have provided for Christianity- I see no difference in our religiously indifferent constitutions.
If this force of continuity is present in a comparable degree, then I do not believe there is any difference between theistic and atheistic morality.

 

[Alaric]

Moral relativism, on the other hand, is essentially immune to such hypocrisy because something is right due to the fact one feels it is so.

What about those people who did something they felt was right at the time, yet later came to regret when they had more info? Obviously information plays a big part.

“Just because” logic is not fallacious as Alaric seems to believe (I’ve read all of the posts in this thread but I may have missed something so pardon me if I have). Positive or negative reactions to circumstances are programmed into us through our life and it is by instinct that we experience moral revulsion to something- this is just as much a reason to disagree with an action as any logical argument is.

Logical moral arguments are the hardest to make because they have to explain why a certain action is necessarily right, now and for all time. People usually fail miserably when they try, but if one is possible, it would be infinitely superior to arguments by instinct, experience, majority, tradition or religious conviction.

On that note, morals programmed into somebody through a religious upbringing are no different in chemical composition to those obtained any other way.

An important difference is empathy. It makes a huge difference if someone just acts because their religion dictates it, or whether they take the consequences of the act on others into account.

One thing that is different ... If this force of continuity is present in a comparable degree, then I do not believe there is any difference between theistic and atheistic morality.

It depends whether the atheist applies the 'just because' argument. The atheist will often be a lot more 'trusted' than the theist, because the theist doesn't apply notions like suffering or equality to his reasoning. It doesn't make the atheist 'right' necessarily, because an objective 'right' doesn't exist, but it makes him a better player in society.

The thing with moral relativism is that it implies that all actions are as good as another, in the end. This is correct in the 'cosmic' sense - there is no final 'goal' of humanity, we're just winging it and seeing where we end up. However, I believe that the very fact we are participators in the world and that we are largely the same implies that we can get at least some way along the road to moral objectivism.

I like the Categorical Imperative - it doesn't tell us what to do, it just makes clear that it is ridiculous to do something without acknowledging the statement you are making about the way you think the world should work. If I don't like to get robbed, then if I robbed someone else, I would be declaring that it's okay for anyone else to rob. If I claim that I am in special circumstances, then I need to make those clear. Cheating on taxes because I think we're being overtaxed is saying that people can break the law if they don't like them. If you say that this applies only to minor crimes, define 'minor' - and in any case, then you'd be effectively saying that laws for minor crimes should not exist. Unless you are willing to admit these things, then your act is objectively immoral.

So I believe that objective morality exists, but only for the individual - and it doesn't depend on his own feelings solely, but simply acknowledges the impact that society has on himself. This is very different from religious or instinctive arguments, as both of these could very well be individually 'illogical'.

For the theist to be able to trump this logical morality, he needs to argue that there are cases for a 'teleological suspension of the ethical' (Kierkegaard) and I don't see how this is acceptable.