Bree

E_Muse

The original question was in regards to personal values, not "the potential to value things" (emphasis mine). You've got your lines crossed somewhere. Two entirely different things.

So, you're saying there's confusion over legally permissable values and values based on human desire? If so, please elaborate.

Are you one of those theists who believes that our moral system must always be in conflict with our "human nature" - if so, please elaborate on this also. In your mind, then, everything we humans want to do that is within the scope of our "human nature" must be evil and sinful. Does our need to eat, then, qualify as evil and sinful simply because it's dictated to us by human nature?

Koyaanisqatsi

I agree with Automoton. The decline is in the cult realm, not ours, since they're the only ones who consider it "moral" to stay married even when the marriage is a dismal failure. They're also the only ones who consider it "moral" to not have extra-marital sex, do drugs, drop out of worthless high schools, etc., etc., etc.

It's as if they never look at the individual cases, but instead of group cult consciousness. A sociologist will say, "65% of teenagers will do drugs," and cult members all go, "SEE! Morality is in decline," without considering the matter any more carefully (or intelligently) than that.

They respond to scare tactics because their beliefs are based on fear without reason or supportable evidence, so it's no wonder that cult members so readily and easily misconstrue scare tactics with intelligent, skeptical deconstruction.

"I see statistics and my pastor tells me we're in a moral decline!"

Well, then, I guess it must be true.

E_muse

I was simply raising the question as to what informs a person's value system. Why does a person come to value what they value? Is this simply determined genetically and what role does environment and nurture play in this?

The ideals of a society may not be representative of the individuals within that society. Certain values are only upheld through the threat of punishment and legal consequences.

People behave in such a way as to 'not get caught'.

People's ideals (which can exist in the realm of the imagination), can be in conflict with behaviour and even instinctive tendencies. People can find something 'good' as a concept but find it impossible to put into practice.

Bree

Can you give me an example?

Some of those crazy Christian ideals (found in the Bible) come to my mind, but I'd like to hear it from you first ;P

E_muse

The human ability to conceptualize and set goals means that we are able to see things which, in one sense, don't yet exist. Technological advancement is one evidence of this. We are surrounded by things which, at some point, didn't exist, except in the mind of the inventors who first thought of them.

I think that the same can be said of morals. We can speak in terms of moral 'ideals' and we can 'hope' to live in a better society - a society which we have conceptualized but don't see. A society free of religion might be one such example - however this would only be an 'improvement' from a particular viewpoint.

Interestingly though, we are able to control so much of our world but, it would seem, we can struggle most controlling ourselves.

For example, most people would probably agree that theft is not good, however, this doesn't mean that they won't steal something at some point in their lives. Theft will only stop when people stop wanting things that are not theirs to have.

Such a reality would mean something of a change in our nature. People realize that if society is to change, we must change.

This isn't a pariculary theistic concept and was expressed in the ideas of people such as Nietzche and what he wrote concerning the Ubermensche which embodied his aspirations for mankind. Not that I am relating this directly to theft but I use it to reflect the ideas of someone who realized that humankind needed to change in a fundamental way.

If man is to succeed, he must be something other than what he is and cannot simply be a product of his culture or society but somehow rise above it.

In my particular culture the general trend seems decidedly post modern. Ironically the teaching of Nietzche has elements of post modernism in it (the Overman who will create his own values, truths etc and won't be dictated to by society) which can be traced back to the thinking of philosophers such as Descartes.

I think that, in the eyes of the general public, atheism has had its chance on the playing field (communism), as has religion, and both have failed to produce the goods. Both have demonstrated themselves capable of producing simililar atrocities and incapable of changing man's nature.

Religion and philosophy both fall short, regardless of the lofty ideals which they espouse.

We may be able conceputalize a world in which people live together in a particular way, but can our ability to reason this and see this also give us the ability to change people at a fundamental level and make it possible?

To quote Echidna from another thread:

Any attempt to turn this into a theist/atheist debate would completely misrepresent the arguement as I think there are areas where theism and atheism would be in agreement.

I certainly do not intend to simply satisfy some intellectual 'blood lust'. Where intellectualism seems to gratify itself on its ability to downtread its opponents. Where the main purpose is some personal indulgence rather than a concern for truth.

I think that, in general, if people are presented with an ideal, a potential utopia, which they desire then they will embrace whatever philisophical concept has lead to that ideal in the hope that it will also give them the ability to achieve it.

However, the 'ideal' can be nothing more than a subjective distortion of what exists in reality - and the subjective distortion can never be utilized to validate the philisophical system that has birthed it or be used to claim that the philisophy is an entirely self sufficient system of thought that is capable of enpowering people to achieve the goals that have been envisioned. It could be argued that this is what religion does.

For example, if we are governed by natural selection and random mutation (forces which affect what we are) then to what degree are we able to dictate or control our future?

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Apologies for having delayed this response so long...

Very true.

To propose that one has a "moral obligation" to be responsible for or to others is a deontological viewpoint. I think that's essentially what you're saying, yes?

It's not necessarily an atheist/theist issue, however I believe it accurate to state that most theists (especially Christian) are deontologists. Consequentialist and/or Virtuist ethical frameworks do not seem to me to fit well with Christian doctrine.

Deontology, on the other hand, fits perfectly. Value is intrinsic to human actions and humans have a moral obligation to do that which is "good" because it is good. As Christian doctrine specifically identifies God with "good", Christians have a moral obligation to follow God.

I'm sure that there are atheist deontologists, but it really seems to me that consequentialism is a better fit for non-theistic worldviews.

I imagine that such a society compels its "deviants" compliance through force; laws, for example. However that doesn't address the issue of morality or values, merely conformity. And not even a "sense of duty" will drive many to conform. That's one of my main points: ethical systems whose value-base is extrinsic to humanity are useless as a basis for long-term ethical development and practice.

I disagree that it's "merely" my opinion. Think about what that implies. To hold that it is not in one's own self-interest to treat others ethically implies that one is fully capable of surviving and prospering as a human being on one's own, with no assistance from any other human being. But this is nonsense! We all require the assistance and cooperation of thousands of other human beings every day. The complex society in which we live simply could not have grown without it. It's simply naive to suppose that it is not in one's own self-interest to treat others in an ethical manner.

It is, in fact, essential to survival. Even theistic ethical systems implicitly recognize this (although they suppose its foundation to be something other than human).

Of course people can act in an ethical manner out of a sense of duty. That's not the point. The point is, can an ethical system based solely on essentially arbitrarily determined duties and responsibilities serve as the foundation for humanity's future? I think not.

I don't see any way in which this doesn't simply beg the question. Duty to what? to whom? Unless the value underlying the "duty" is intrinsic to human needs, I do not believe that it can stand as a foundation for moral/ethical development. That is my central thesis.

It is certainly possible to construct a system of laws and enforce obedience; even to claim that obedience has moral value. But what renders such obedience morally necessary? Why ought we to obey? The mere existence of such rules or laws cannot answer that question. It must be tied to us in some way as to render that question self-evident or moot.

You've lost me here. I'm not "rationalizing" anyone's behavior. I would argue that self-interest is, in fact, the motivation behind all human behavior, even behavior that seems altruistic. The problem, I believe, is that most people do not always realize that their self-interest may some times lie in a direction other than that conveyed by their base emotions. In other words, most people do not always take the time to rationally examine their desires and needs to determine the best course of action.

I have no desire to stop people from having religious experiences. I do not desire to eliminate religion. The only point I am making is that the equation RELIGION=MORALITY is not one upon which the healthy multi-cultural society of the future can be successfully based.

To that end, I have no desire to control the way people think. Rational discourse, such as we are enjoying now, and education will eventually lead people to realize the necessity of grounding ethics in human needs and realities.

There certainly must be a connection between "community" and "humanity". Not Christians, not Muslims, not Jews, not black, not white, not asian, but humans as a whole. Religion is a dividing influence and can therefore never succeed as the basis for a free and diverse society. As humans, our best bet is to build upon our commonalities; that which unites us.

Not at all. Moral and ethical standards are inter-subjective. They are based on values that are held by all humans. Essentially, that which promotes human life (qua human life) is good, that which destroys it is bad.

I don't agree. Secular Humanism has at its foundation the values and needs of humanity. This is essentially what I'm arguing: that the values and needs of humanity, not so-called "gods", must form the basis of ethics and morality if pluralistic societies are to be successful.

However, I would agree that such a foundation does not and should not necessitate the elimination of religion. It need only discard the RELIGION=MORALITY equation.

I'm afraid I don't follow this at all. How can an "open" system have a "closed" system at its heart?

But I certainly do insist that this is how people should think. If everyone in the world believed and acted in their own enlightened self-interest, the world would be a much better place.

How could anyone disagree? I'm essentially proposing that humanity's moral/ethical system be founded upon "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even Christ believed that all of the law depended upon this simple rule (of course, many of his followers seem to have some different ideas).

I'm not sure I understand the point you're attempting to make. The use of force is only justified as a response, never in initiation. To make war is morally wrong; to respond with force against an aggressor is not.

No, because they are not culturally-specific. The values for which I argue are not the product of rational thought, but are rather discovered through rational thought.

As the value of human life qua human life(essentially what we are discussing) is recognized by all living humans de facto, they are already in agreement. What not all humans have realized is that treating others ethically is in accord with and demanded by this value.

To begin with, there can be no "atheistic" moral system (one based on atheism).. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no unitary value upon which a moral system could be built.

Secondly, I'm not aware of any value systems created by and sustained by atheists. Probably the closest one could come would be Communism, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a value system.

Lastly, I am not proposing an "atheistic" moral system, but a Humanist one. Humanists need not be atheists. My argument is:

I. Moral/ethical systems are required in order to facilitate a harmonious society.

II. The society of man's future will be pluralistic and diverse.

III. A moral/ethical system that will function in a pluralistic and diverse society must have at its core a unitary value.

IV. In order to be unitary, that value must transcend human culture and tradition, but must still be connected to humanity's nature.

V. Religious moral systems are culturally & traditionally bound and bear no necessary connection to humanity's nature and therefore cannot serve this function.

VI. A Humanistic system based upon enlightened self-interest is the best alternative to replace religion as the moral foundation for humanity's future.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

emphryio

Excellent, excellent stuff, Snedden, Kvalhion.

E_muse

Greetings Bill

No problem - we're all busy people!

I was clarifying the definiton of the word - yes.

Which I find interesting, particularly as the vast majority of Paul's writings in the New Testament are concerned with freedom from an obligation to the law.

So either way, we're going to pursue the 'good' out a sense of moral obligation. The motivation might be different but the outcomes might be similar - just thinking out loud here! Again, this seems to require that we can accurately predict the outcomes of our actions.

Consequentialism seems to depend upon our ability to foresee the consequences of our actions. We can only judge actions 'good' or 'bad' in hindsight.

But the need for conformity through force only highlights the fact that the enforced values of a society do not represent 'common values'. Wouldn't that be the case?

One cannot argue that a particular value system is 'universal' and at the same time need to enforce it surely?

I agree with your comments regarding a sense of duty - hence all my previous comments regarding a change being necessary in man's nature.

To conceputalize an ideal society is different from being able to live it. The moment we sacrifice our own desires for another agenda, or the good of something else, then we are acting out of obligation to something outsie of ourselves.

I'm not saying that we do not need the mutual benefits which we enjoy from being in good relationship with our fellow humans. However, human nature often hinders this process.

However, even if a person acts in such a way that they indirectly benefit, this makes no statement about their initial motivations.

If a person makes a truly altruistic gesture and in some way benefits, does this knowledge dictate that self interest must henceforth become the motivating factor?

I'm not sure to what extent we can judge on subjective (and therefore unseen) motivations on the basis of objective outcomes.

This seems to be a 'cause' and 'effect' dynamic which you are describing.

However, to 'treat others in an ethical manner' can be a very superficial act. It may not convey what we're really thinking or feeling. It merely describes the 'game' which we must all play in order to get what we want out of life. The roles which people play in every day life in order to get by and get what they want might say nothing about what is going on inside of them.

I suppose this is because people can envision a society or state of being which they are yet incapable of achieving. They can see that it is not in their nature to achieve and so have the sense that such 'ideals' must come from something other than themselves.

This certainly describes Old Testament theism and is one of the major reasons why Jesus hit out at the Pharisees. Jesus constantly slams them for their meticulous adherence to rules whilst at the same time abusing others. Something which could perfectly describe many modern day Churches.

I have no problem with this. Biblically Christians are encouraged to 'look to the needs of others' and 'not simply their own needs' so there's nothing new in this principle and is actually a Biblical exhortation.

This is where I would depart from the concept of enlightened self interest, simply because I enjoy investing myself in a way which benefits others. I suppose the fact that I enjoy doing it means that I am also gaining something from it - I feel fulfilled.

But 'self interest' can never be the sole motivation because our actions must also benefit others in some way. I can think of plenty of entirely selfish ways to gain pleasure and hide it behind a mask of respectability - so long as I get what I want I will say what I think others need to hear.

Thinking out loud again... and trying to see this from purely theistic viewpoint...

Jesus said, 'Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me'.

If we're doing good to someone out a vain sense that we might benefit from it, or that somehow by touching someone we are touching a God that we worship and adore, what does it matter so long as people benefit?

The question with self interest is, where does self interest leave off?

Can we predict the consequences of our actions to such a high degree of accuracy to know that our laws are necessarity 'good' under all circumstances?

And of course, someone with a different world view and who sees man as eternal will view the situation very differently.

The fact that we must construct laws on aspects of human commonality means that we seek to define law according to a set of default values if you like. But this is pragmatic and doesn't answer questions like, 'Why should we be seeking to get along in the first place?' and could cause us to

But you've drawn a conclusion about human behaviour here. So how can you also argue that you're not rationalizing behaviour? There must be some logical deduction going on here because you're judging subjective motivations which you can't directly experience but only see the outcomes of.

Does that include their need for God?

The 'best' course of action depends heavily on how we choose to rationalize life. People who take their own lives obviously feel that this is the 'best' or 'only' course of action.

But the principles which you've described - 'Do to others as you would have them do unto you' - have their roots in religion - not in rationalism and the earliest quote appears to be from Hindu writing around 3000 bc. Rationalism can act upon the command in terms of how the principle should be applied - but that's different.

Without the command to act in a particular way, how could such behaviour be observed and seen to be beneficial and therefore be acted upon by the faculty of reason?

And of course the fact that people continue to claim to experience God means that God remains a part of human 'reality'. You urge the question, what is real? Can you truly argue that 'real' is only that which applies to all people - or common experience? This is what you're ethical system is also based on and seems to beg a much deeper question.

Wasn't it the apostle Paul who said that in Christ there was no 'Jew nor Greek, Slave or free, male nor female - all are one in Christ'. Again, and with respect, there's nothing new here is there?

The apostle Paul lived in a diverse culture (Greek/Roman/Jewish) and saw his own philisophical system (if that's what it was) as being culturally and traditionally transcendent - transcendent of his own Jewish roots as well as the cultures around him.

As you've made one of Christ's teachings foundational to your own secular humanistic model it would seem that Paul's statement is not completely without foudation itself! Yet looking back in history we now simply see his worldview as one amongst many - what is to say that secular humanism won't become the same?

You're working from a different philisophical standpoint it seems but share the same longings as the apostle Paul and have the same confidence that a particular philisophical approach can achieve it.

It is when we see our own way of thinking as representative of 'truth' that most people start to get wary.

But these values are not held by all humans. Most humans would probably agree that the destruction of all life on earth would be a bad thing. However, not everyone would agree that it is bad to destroy some life to achieve a particular end.

In my country today a young Asian lad was found beaten to death and burned. Obviously those who committed this act do not share the value that to destroy human life under certain circumstances is bad. It isn't common to all humans to think like that - and that's simply a fact.

I would correct your opening statement here. Secular Humanism has at its foundation what it thinks are the values and needs of humanity.

But what happens when man needs God? God only exists because people 'need' him. He forms a part of human desire and human need.

In order to argue for common needs you already seem to be excluding certain needs.

The fact that religion exists seems to suggest that human need is diverse.

But the principle which you've made the basis for your eithical system has its roots, fairly and squarely in Biblical teaching. This raises the question - What makes us religious?

Of course going to a church on a Sunday, singing hymns and listening to a sermon will do little to transform our lives. I would argue that the Church is often way out of touch with real life and a closet for those who want to avoid real issues.

However, if society chooses to go back to 'Biblical values', such as treating others in such a way that they would want to be treated then all well and good, even if it gets there before the Church does!

A draw a distinction between religion and spirituality. Religon forms the basis for much corruption. Rites and rotes are set up on the basis of a spiritual experience and continued long after the experience is lost - replaced by a determination to continue the methodology of religion rather than seek that which brought the experience in the first place.

But a society which is built upon a particular value system must have a particular worldview at its heart which is in someway closed. How can an 'open' system truly exist because it exists first in the minds of men?

A moral system which is established only on common human experiences is by its very nature closed to those experiences which are not common.

Forgive me if I don't share your optimism, especially in the light of recent events!

Well, Christ didn't just believe it, he taught it.

Which of course is an appeal to a religious foundation. It seems rather over dramatic to describe the principle of 'self interest' as a form of future enlightenment when the general principle has been around for some 2000 years! I wonder why people haven't grasped it yet?

And of course, if the principle exists first within religion, you cannot argue that religion doesn't equal morality or that religious principles are not being made the foundation of future morality - unless a form of plagiarism is going on here.

But isn't the aggressor only acting out of self interest?

But any number of values could be discovered this way. This doesn't legitimize them does it?

But it isn't! People who fly planes into the sides of buildings and spread anthrax spores don't think like this do they? That's why we're at war with them. It simply isn't true that it is recognised by all living humans in any absolute sense.

It may be true in the West but to appeal to our western ethic as a standard which is descriptive of all human behaviour would be arrogance indeed!

But what demands that this particular value be adopted?

Well, I'm glad you said it and not me

Surely any system which has a particular objective as its goal must have certain values underlying these aims.

True.

Possibly.

It would seem a pragmatic necessity, yes. But are we talking about a western ethic here?

Well, that's the ideal. This seems a little circular. If human cultures and traditions are the product of human thought and nature, in its many diverse forms, how can human thought then transcend all of these?

Who would arbitrate this and enforce such rules? The enforers and guardians of these values would have to enforce these values whilst at the same time arguing that they are common to man.

Also, the guardians of such rules would be claiming that they were enlightened as well as culturally and traditionally transcendent. Couldn't that sound a little bit arrogant - just a bit! You describe the Overman.

What is interesting is that you seem to be arguing that a culturally and traditionally transcendent value system has its roots in a Biblical principle taught by Jesus.

To ground this in the here and now, are we at war with terrorism because we see our own values as culturally and traditionally transcendent? Is that really the reason - no, it is to protect our own interests and our own survival.

Religious moral systems are not descriptive of all human experience in any absolute sense. Religion must have a connection to humanity's nature because religion exists in most, if not every culture in this world.

You're saying that humans are diverse and yet saying that humans have common values all in the same breath.

Human cultures are self contained and self governing - it's what happens when they collide!

But in your own words:

You've made a principle taught by Jesus and other religious thinkers the very foundation of humanity's moral/ethical system whilst at the same time saying that you've replaced religion as the foundation! How does that work?

But as we've seen, enlightened self interest isn't new - and existed in the teachings of Jesus some 2000 years ago. It (the Golden Rule) is actually found in other sayings, but it is only within the context of Christianity (that I am aware), that we are actually commanded to love others. Therefore, nothing is really being replaced is it?

This being the case, and knowing the massive influence which Christian thinking has had, why have we not seen this idyllic change? Why is it that those who claim to follow Christ can be just as bad at living out this principle?

Lastly, it's late and I'm tired so please forgive any inaccuracies, errors or incoherence!

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

voltaire321

I would argue that it is quite wrong to force people to stay in a marriage at all. Divorce should be as easy as signing a piece of paper. If I as person choose not to be legally bound to another person then that is my right. Even if property ownership and child support still needs to be decided there is no reason to force to people to stay married until the decision is resolved.

In fact, I think marriage and divorce are are an area where church - state separation is sorely lacking. Of course at this point in history it's way too late to separate the two.

E_muse

You're essentially arguing that anything which you choose to want to do should also exist as a legal right.

Firstly, if you want separation to be that easy, the simplest solution would be to not marry in the first place, thus making separation easier.

Making divorce less than straightforward gives people who may be going through a bad patch an opportunity to see if their feelings do change and work at reconcilliation if this becomes possible.

Lastly, your rights as an individual are linked to what is permissible within your culture, not simply to what you as an individual desire to do.