Does culture determine ethics? Are there human rights that exist regardless of what the culture says? The culture of the antebellum South approved of slavery. Does that mean that slavery was OK for Southerners and those who sought to abolilsh it were wrong to do so?
39 comments:
A similar question can be asked regarding logic. For the eliminative materialist matter in motion is neither logical or illogical and yet they say that brain matter is exhibiting logical or illogical behavior - which is impossible. It's quite incoherent.
Under atheism, the term "moral" simply means "my personal preference, and whoever else I can find who agrees with me".
Under atheism, there is no "wrong". There are simply various biological impulses operating within temporary cultural environments in which the local majority opinion has brought the twin weapons of public opinion and law enforcement to bear against those whose impulses differ from the norm. No one does anything wrong, but minorities in the "ought" category are overpowered.
Whether you are the majority or minority opinion, you are equally as evil, which is not at all. If I was an atheist who believed what I preached, I would see nothing whatsoever wrong with Southern slavery, even if I personally found it distasteful.
Yes, there are indeed rights and wrongs regardless of the culture or the historical period. Atheism doesn't entail moral relativism. You can learn all about this with a quick Internet search - but only if you want to.
Jonh B. Moore,
I agree. The question of God's existence is irrelevant to the question of human morality.
It is only because there are living organisms that there is value in the world. And it is only living creatures like ourselves that can be said to behave morally or immorally.
John,
I did a quick internet search and read several philosophical options that atheists rely on to avoid moral relativism. To be honest I never doubted that those options existed. What I'm doubting is the coherency of claiming that they are not relativistic. What I mean is that all of the moral obligations are grounded in human opinion or human values, which is relativistic. Evolutionary ethics which says morally good behavior is behavior that promotes cooperation and social harmony for survival and flourishing of communities is grounded in human opinion - the opinion that humans are obligated to adhere to evolutionary ethics rather than some other ethic that some other humans think is a superior ethic.
An analogy: An architect designs and builds a building and assigns a functional purpose to each room. People move into the building and have various opinions regarding the functional purpose of each room. This is functional relativism where the function is grounded in the opinion of the people rather than the functional facts that are grounded in what the designer intended. If there wasn't a designer then only functional relativism would exist.
SteveK: I disagree that human values are "relativistic." We all share a deep, fundamental human nature. It's the struggle for survival and prosperity. Oh sure, various cultures pursue prosperity in different ways, but the common thread is deeper than the outward expressions.
I disagree when you say evolutionary ethics is grounded in human opinion. Evolution is fundamental to all life. Again, we have diversity among our human communities, but everyone has the same desire to survive and thrive in this world.
It's no mere opinion that humans are "obligated to adhere to evolutionary ethics." We can't do otherwise. It's simply our nature as living beings.
This doesn't mean everyone succeeds. People don't absolutely know the best way to survive and thrive. It's important for people to try various strategies, because that way some will surely end up succeeding.
Maybe you look at people pursuing different strategies in life, and you call that moral relativism. But you need to look deeper and see the common goal that everyone is striving for. That common goal is what evolutionary ethics is all about, not the different strategies.
Since all human behaviors, good and bad, are equally evolved traits, what is the mechanism within evolutionary ethics which determines whether a behavior is good or bad? It can't do so without an arbitrary standard, which is an opinion.
Evolutionary ethics can provide a biological explanation for why we have a moral sense in the first place, but it comes with zero moral obligation. It is the majority opinion and the threat of force which provides that obligation.
Hal,
It is only because there are living organisms that there is value in the world. And it is only living creatures like ourselves that can be said to behave morally or immorally.
1. Are values and morality the same thing? What if you don't "value" my "morality"?
2. Why do you think that materially living organisms are the cause of value in the world? Without begging the question or using a circular argument.
3. Since there was apparently a time when there were no materially living organisms where did values/morality come from? I mean did values/morality come into existence from nothing?
John,
“Again, we have diversity among our human communities, but everyone has the same desire to survive and thrive in this world.”
We all do, however some rely on raping and pillaging in order to achieve this goal. The standard by which behavior is morally judged is grounded in opinion and that is moral relativism.
“ People don't absolutely know the best way to survive and thrive.”
If people don’t know then how are they able to judge which behavior is morally the best?
bmiller,
Not all values are moral values.
Where is value in a universe devoid of life?
Value came into existence when living forms evolved. Living organisms require food and a suitable environment in order to stay alive, so those things have value to them. They did not live in an earthly paradise in which all that is necessary to sustain life is readily available.
The only organisms living on earth that have knowledge of good and evil are human beings. So when they evolved from their biological ancestors, moral values came into existence.
Hi Hal,
Not all values are moral values.
But in reference to moral values, what if you don't value mine and if I don't value yours? Isn't it all morality relative then?
Where is value in a universe devoid of life?
I mentioned materially living organisms. Since I am not a atheist materialist why should I assume that is the only possible form of life or source of morality?
Also, you asserted that it was because of (materially) living organisms (MLO) that values/morality (VM)came into existence. I don't see how some non-existent thing can cause another non-existent thing to come into existence. By this I mean that there was a time that neither MLOs or VM existed. Then they both existed. How did that happen? How did something come from nothing?
bmiller,
"Since I am not a atheist materialist why should I assume that is the only possible form of life or source of morality?"
So I take it that you would agree with me that value can only exist if there are living things?
Also, I don't consider myself to be a materialist. I happen to agree with their position that the only substances that exist are material substances but disagree with most of their other positions.
Hi Hal,
I think that it is a mistake to equate values with morality. Values inherently refer to relative preferences while morality supposedly does not. I notice you seem to use the terms interchangeably. I think that's a mistake.
So I take it that you would agree with me that value can only exist if there are living things?
Again it depends on what you mean by value. Animate beings with an intellect and the knowledge of good and evil are responsible for their moral choices. A dog may value dogfood over catfood but we don't consider them moral beings. Inanimate beings seem to prefer to follow certain rules also but most don't think they are following conscious choices.
It also depends on what you consider living things. Materialists reject the existence of immateriality which looks to me that they tacitly reject that there are actually any living things at all.
I happen to agree with their position that the only substances that exist are material substances but disagree with most of their other positions.
Why do you agree that there are only material substances?
bmiller,
"It also depends on what you consider living things.
Not really. My position is that there is no value without life.
That does not entail that we have to agree on what living things exist.
"Why do you agree that there are only material substances?"
I find the concept of immaterial substances such as mental or spiritual substances to be incoherent.
There are many things that do exist in our world that are not substances. So I strongly disagree with materialists that the only things that can exist are material things.
If you want a fuller explanation you can refer back to PMS Hacker's chapter on Substance which I've already linked to in our previous discussions.
My general approach to these issues is better classified as 'Philisophical Anthropology'. You should be familiar with that terminology since Dr. Feser's recent book "Immortal Souls" along with PMS Hacker's tetralogy on 'Human Nature' fall in that category.
Hal,
Not really. My position is that there is no value without life.
I disagree that values=morality so it does matter if that is your definition of values.
If you want a fuller explanation...
You've indicated your opinion but you haven't explained the reasons for your opinion. Why are there immaterial things but no immaterial substances? Is it because you've defined a substance to only be material? Why shouldn't I define a substance to be a form with an act of existence regardless of whether there is matter or not?
I'm still waiting for Dr Feser's book but as you should be aware, Dr Feser is a Thomist and has written articles and books arguing for the existence of God and angels, ie...immaterial substances.
Kevin asks, "What is the mechanism within evolutionary ethics which determines whether a behavior is good or bad?" The mechanism is natural selection, of course. The thing that determines good is long-term survival of the species.
SteveK asks, "If people don't know then how are they able to judge which behavior is morally the best?"
Knowledge isn't all-or-nothing. People can pretty much tell which actions are likely to enhance survivability, and which probably lead to extinction. We ourselves have survived so far, and we pretty much know what we're doing.
The problem with raping and pillaging is that it causes people to hate you and perhaps take revenge against you. That might be OK in an evolutionary sense if you totally dominate and destroy all your enemies. But realistically speaking, it's best to cooperate with the people around you and work peacefully for general prosperity. We know this. And look - just about all countries today condemn rapine and pillage. No one thinks that's a successful strategy for longterm survival.
Hal Friedrichs says, "It is only because there are living organisms that there is value in the world." I agree with this. It's hard to imagine any kind of value or morality in a world without life. And this goes right along with evolutionary morality. Life relies on evolution by natural selection, and life also brings morality into existence. They are closely related.
I don't disagree with you that it's best to cooperate with people to promote prosperity, however that viewpoint is grounded in human opinion when viewed from a materialistic framework.
This opinion is not a fact of the universe or even a fact about all human beings. It's just a fact about me (my opinion) and you (your option) and whoever else agrees with us. Mobsters who don't value the prosperity of some people and who value living as mobsters have the opinion that their morality is superior to ours.
Because all morality it's grounded in human opinion and because opinions change over time and within different groups of people, the morality is relativistic - but I'm repeating myself.
The mechanism is natural selection, of course. The thing that determines good is long-term survival of the species.
This is predicated on the opinion that survival of the species is good independently of biological imperative, so it does not stand as an objective arbiter of morality. Most other species surely wouldn't mind if every human vanished. Most might even benefit.
Furthermore, all classically "bad" behaviors also stem from biological urges, not to mention behaviors that benefit the survival of the individual at the cost of others of the species - which extends past the individual to groups, resting on the entirely natural inclination to form various tribal boundaries and define "me/us vs the Other". Thus it seems to me that selectively determining which urges and behaviors are "good" is even more dependent upon an arbitrary assumption of morality that extends past naturally-selected behavioral tendencies.
John
Let's agree that all human beings have the same desire to survive and thrive in this world. What follows from this fact as it relates to individual human behavior? Nothing as far as I can tell. There's certainly no obligation for any individual to live this out in any particular way.
One individual might think it best to live this out by taking from others. Another might think it best to give to others. As human beings we do both - we give and we take. We also are unkind and uncooperative at times and in those moments, just like the person taking from others, we are living out the same desire to survive and thrive in this world.
I am having trouble understanding why posters here are claiming that John's or my conceptions of moarlity are invalid because people often disagree over moral judgements. That is the case regardless of one's conception. Theists disagree over moral judgements just as often as non-theists.
bmiller,
Why shouldn't I define a substance to be a form with an act of existence regardless of whether there is matter or not?
Only material substances can act in this world.
Descartes was mistaken to assume there was another kind of substance (mental) that could interact with a material substance. No one has ever been able to come up with a coherent explanation for how that is possible.
I'm still waiting for Dr Feser's book but as you should be aware, Dr Feser is a Thomist and has written articles and books arguing for the existence of God and angels, ie...immaterial substances.
I know. I have the kindle version of his book.
bmiller,
I disagree that values=morality so it does matter if that is your definition of values.
You misunderstand. Values don't equal morality. There are many varieties of value. For example, medical goodness, instrumental goodness, technical goodness and the goodness of moral virtues.
Axiological (value) concepts are necessary for an adequate understanding of human morality.
As you said above, human beings have knowledge of good and evil. "Good" and "evil" are axiological concepts.
SteveK,
I don't disagree with you that it's best to cooperate with people to promote prosperity, however that viewpoint is grounded in human opinion when viewed from a materialistic framework.
Nope. It is grounded in human nature. Whether one views that nature as created by God or a product of evolution is irrelevant.
I am having trouble understanding why posters here are claiming that John's or my conceptions of moarlity are invalid because people often disagree over moral judgements.
I didn't say they were invalid. My concern was the statement that atheism does not entail moral relativism, when I think it explicitly means just that. A moral system can internally have consistent rules, but an atheist has to decide to follow that system and has no reasonable excuse to accuse another of immorality for not following it.
Theists do in fact disagree on moral issues, but built into the belief system is the acceptance that the final arbiter on good and evil, which are believed to objectively exist, is God as laid out in the scriptures (in the case of Christianity). Sure, people impose their own beliefs over it and claim divine sanction for evil behavior all the time, but that's a separate (and very problematic) issue.
One can't similarly say that evolution is the final arbiter when evolution is equally responsible for all negative traits. Those also survived natural selection, so there is some sort of survival benefit there.
Kevin,
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't agree that people just pick and choose their moral system. Typically it is internalized through teaching of our elders and our experiences in growing up. Of course, when we reach adulthood and have the capacity to reason regarding moral values we may come to realize that some of those internalized values are wrong. And we also have to deal with those impulses that we recognize as being wrong or even evil.
So, ultimately I think morality flows from human nature. If that nature is a result of evolution it is a contingent fact. If it is a result of God's creation, it is a necessary fact. In either case atheists and theists still have to grapple with the complexities of morality.
Hal,
Only material substances can act in this world.
Descartes...
I don't think I've seen anyone of this blog defending Descartes and I certainly haven't. So this answer seems to be answering a different question.
You misunderstand. Values don't equal morality.
I brought this up because it looks to me as if you've been using the terms interchangeably as a lot of people do. If morality is the same as "values" then morality has been redefined as being relativistic and this is what I disagree with.
That's why I disagree with this statement:
Axiological (value) concepts are necessary for an adequate understanding of human morality.
As you said above, human beings have knowledge of good and evil. "Good" and "evil" are axiological concepts.
Good and Evil are objective. Whether you desire to do good or evil depends on ones "values". For instance, selfish values can cause evil and selfless values can result in good.
Hal,
“It is grounded in human nature. Whether one views that nature as created by God or a product of evolution is irrelevant”
Evolution guarantees that things change over time. You seem to be claiming that human nature doesn’t change which I have no reason to believe since everything changes. The human nature of yesterday had different moral values than today. The point remains that morality is relative on this view.
Hal
Similar to what I said to John, let's agree that all human beings have the same human nature. What follows from this fact as it relates to individual human behavior? Nothing as far as I can tell.
Hal
"If that nature is a result of evolution it is a contingent fact. If it is a result of God's creation, it is a necessary fact."
I think I agree with this statement you made to Kevin. My only point so far has been that atheistic morality is relativistic because it is grounded in human beings that change over time, and here it seems that you are in agreement.
bmiller,
Good and Evil are objective. Whether you desire to do good or evil depends on ones "values". For instance, selfish values can cause evil and selfless values can result in good.
Good and evil are objective moral values.
If one desires and does evil things they are an evil person. Their desire or decision to commit evil does not excuse them. They have lost their soul.
The same can happen to societies and unfortunately has. Nazi Germany and the Aztec Mesoamerican societies are prime examples. Fortunately the Nazi's did not last long. The Aztec's societies endured for centuries: torturing and sacrificing countless children and adults to appease their gods.
SteveK,
let's agree that all human beings have the same human nature. What follows from this fact as it relates to individual human behavior? Nothing as far as I can tell.
What follows is that some individuals are more moral than others. There are individuals that struggle to live a moral life. There are others that have turned away from moral values and live wicked lives.
The human nature of yesterday had different moral values than today.
Humans today disagree over moral values. That does not justify holding a relatavistic ethics.
Hal,
"That does not justify holding a relatavistic ethics"
"Good and evil are objective moral values."
So an ethic must be justified in order to be true/valid/correct? What is the material thing(s) that justifies the ethic that you personally hold?
The moral values are grounded in individual human beings that vary from individual to individual. If you are claiming that human nature grounds these things (moral values, justification) such that they are a fixed, objective and universal feature of all human beings then you'll need to explain how this fits into a materialistic worldview that is governed by evolution.
SteveK,
.. you'll need to explain how this fits into a materialistic worldview that is governed by evolution.
I'm not a materialist.
There is a framework which is necessary for human morality to exist. I'll be posting this later today or tomorrow.
September 16, 2024 11:06 AM
"I'm not a materialist"
Sorry. I made this assumption since the beginning with John and didn't think to consider that you might have a different viewpoint. Look forward to seeing what you post later.
Hal,
If one desires and does evil things they are an evil person. Their desire or decision to commit evil does not excuse them. They have lost their soul.
We all desire and do evil things. We can all be redeemed.
We don't have to lose our soul.
SteveK writes: "That viewpoint (that it's best to cooperate with people to promote prosperity) is grounded in human opinion when viewed from a materialistic framework."
I would just point out that there's a difference between what people believe and what is objectively true. Some people might believe it's better to cheat others rather than cooperate, and that is indeed their opinion, but it's not true. We can watch the results when people cheat or cooperate, and we see that cooperation consistently brings better outcomes for people.
Therefore, I think it's objectively true that cooperation tends to build prosperity better. It's not just a matter of opinion.
----
Later, talking about our common desire to survive and thrive, you write: "There's certainly no obligation for any individual to live this out in any particular way."
On the one hand, it's true that there is no one "particular way" to thrive. On the other hand, everyone has the urge to survive. It's very powerful and unavoidable. Even people who commit suicide often rationalize that their death might have some kind of benefit for others who survive them.
----
In another comment you wrote: "Evolution guarantees that things change over time. You seem to be claiming that human nature doesn't change ..."
I think human nature is simply the urge to survive and thrive. This can't change even as evolution marches on, because it's an essential aspect of evolution itself.
You also wrote: "What follows from this fact as it relates to individual human behavior? Nothing as far as I can tell." It's all about survival versus extinction. Whatever contributes to our survival is good. Whatever tends to make us less likely to survive (or thrive) is morally wrong. That's the whole thing.
Maybe you're looking for some hard and fast moral rules. It's true that evolutionary morality only provides handy rules of thumb that are good in most situations. That's the best we can do, as imperfect humans.
So far there has been no connection made between facts and any behavioral obligations. Without that connection I don't see that morality is being discussed. I only see a discussion about human nature and what humans desire.
But there's another aspect that needs to be discussed. Can humans behave contrary to their human nature and desire? If yes, then what nature are they aligned with if not their human nature? If no, then aren't all of their behaviors ethical because they all align with their nature & desire?
Post a Comment