BioBeing

On another board, I've gotten into a discussion about the origin of morality, and I'm just a wee bit over my head. Here is a snippet of the converstation:

Now - I don't think that he is correct - that the idea of an "autonomous, rational and responsible person" is a purely Judeao-Christian concept; or that any society founded on secular principles is automatically doomed to failure, but does my response address his properly? Anyone got any pointers I can use?

Thanks!

Godless Dave

Even if you accept that the concept of individuality came from the Judeo-Christian worldview, that doesn't mean Judaism/Christianity is true.

BioBeing

Mods - would this get more traffic in MF&P? Please move if you think it is worth it!

Psycho Economist

See, I'd say the notion of autonomous, rational, responsible people is Athenian in origin. About the same time King Josiah's scribes were "discovering" Deuteronomy, Athens was establishing the world's first democracy. Of course, at this point it becomes an argument about the historical veracity of the Old Testament.

In the secular view, that the history depicted in the Old Testament before the time of Josiah is a load of politically-motivated rubbish, the Greeks have the Hebrews beat in a walk. Hebrew notions of the importance of the individual, prophets aside, was a concept they acquired due to Greek influence on the region... through both the Persian occupation and subsequent conquest by Alexander's army. Christianity is doubly beholden to the Greeks, as the Church was heavily influenced by the Romans, who were in turn heavily influenced by the Greeks again.

In the religious view... with Judah and Israel being a united Medeteranian superpower in the twelfth centure B.C.E., it's difficult to say. More so for me, since I take a secular reading to the O.T. anyway.

fishbulb

This is a seriously weak argument. In the first place, he is considering only one system--communism--but he is making conclusions about an entire class of systems. Not only that, but communism is not a moral system; it is an economic system. Really, it's not even that. It's more of ane economic philosophy. This would seem to derail his entire argument right off. We can suppose that an economic system has moral consequences and imagine that one's moral beliefs might influence one's decision to advocate a system of morality, but communism, like capitalism and any other economic philosophy, does not prescribe a particular moral code.

As for his conclusions about why communism failed, he doesn't support them and so we don't have to take them seriously. There is nothing to argue until he comes back with an argument to justify his conclusion.

You can also point out that modern moral codes have more to do with Bentham, Mill, and the other utilitarians than they do with Christian edicts. If we followed traditional Christian values, we would beat our kids with sticks, burn homosexuals and heretics at the stake, prohibit or at least discourage bathing and other forms of self-indulgance, and do all sorts of other wonderful things that were considered good and right in the days before the Enlightenment when the Church had its hand in every aspect of day to day life.

Somehow I don't see Nietzsche saying that Christians are rational, responsible people. As I recall, he said they were weak and soulless, and held meekness, feebleness, and self-abasement as the highest of virtues. But then Nietzsche is sometimes hard to understand.

Nietzsche aside, this is a rather astounding claim, especially since there is tremendous historical precedent to disprove it. At the very least, the Greeks championed autonomy, rationality, and responsibility long before Christianity existed. Athenians were practicing direct democracy over half a millenium before the first Christian existed. The Christian Church was responsible for the inquisition, witch burnings, the suppression of the observations of Galileo, the restriction of speech and literature, and all kinds of other deeds that could hardly be described as promoting autonomy and rationality. As for responsibility, who was it that said everyone, regardless of how good and honourable they were, was still a wicked sinner because sin was somehow passed down from Adam and Eve through to everyone. Was it the philosophers of ancient Greece or Rome? I am pretty sure that it was Christians.

I wouldn't let him get away with such a statement; make him define his terms clearly and present real evidence to support it.

Bree

It's definately worth it!

Alonzo Fyfe

I am going to go with the first response.

If, perhaps, a biblical passage presented what evidence suggests to be the discovery of 0, this would not imply that mathematics requires the belief in God.

It is totally irrelevant.

BioBeing

Thanks for the responses guys and gals. No response from the other guy yet to my earlier comments...