Is there a rational basis for morality in a purposeless universe?

[tonyrey]

Because, otherwise, under the materialist/naturalist assumption, everything simply “emerges”. By calling things that come to be, “emergent,” the non-theist believes in the fantasy that such a description absolves him of having to find or attribute cause. When confronted with that difficulty, the non-theist conjures up even more fantasies, such as, “the life principle emerged from inert matter.”

That starts with a “nothingness” and ends with a “nothingness.” And, by a process of non-think, something finds being, as a process, in between the two nothingnesses. After 30 years of wallowing in atheism, I found it much easier to believe in something on either side of “something.” Even if that something is that we are nothing more than ideas in the Mind of our Deity.

Many people cannot see the wood for the trees. You have opened their eyes - if they don’t insist on keeping them firmly closed!

0 > X > 0 sums up naturalism perfectly.

So did King Lear: “Nothing shall come of nothing.”

 

[tonyrey]

In this naturalistic context, then, there is nothing in the fact of sentience that makes it a preferable form of existence because there is no ground for preferential treatment in this naturalistic context. If then your existence or lack of it makes no difference, then why would murder be impermissible? Merely because it destroys your sense of self being important to you? You would have to admit that other selves need not harbor those same feelings about you as you do because they have no natural basis for doing so. In which case, there are no grounds for anything like a moral imperative. No “ought” could exist other than to promote a merely self-preservationist pragmatism. If we both want to survive, we should not kill each other, but what if I feel my survival is better promoted by doing away with you? There cannot be anything “morally” wrong in killing you because you have no inherent “value,” in fact, no one does. It might not be pragmatically feasible to kill others, but it also could very well be in some situations. Your strictly naturalistic context would necessarily be silent on such a question.

You must be aware that this thinking would not be compelling to a super powerful agent whose view is to not respect the other selves in his/her world (to show no gender bias) because of an aim to subdue all other forms and become the ruling lord of all sentient creatures. There is no objective moral standard by which this world view could be found to be morally objectionable because the natural order is neutral in this regard.

Irrefutable! Nature is necessarily amoral.

You must also be aware that the standard rejoinder to the moral argument for God: “Does God will things because they are good or are they good because God wills them?” completely loses its cogency following such an admission because you have conceded that the universe is morally neutral. Therefore might is just as right as any other pragmatically successful strategy because right has no definable meaning, except to subjective holders of value. God, being ultimate subject, would have the ultimate say on the definition and standard for value.

The dilemma is based on a false distinction between God and goodness. God wills good because truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love converge in Him.

The idea that there is a moral edifice to the universe/creation/exiistence does not entail that its ultimate purpose was for human development, but that human development fits into a greater moral structure that is the foundation of existence because the ground of existence is something analogically akin to “personhood,” “agency” or “purpose.” How important human moral development is within that structure is an open question to a theist. Humans were made to be moral creatures, not that the only morally valuable creatures are humans. The idea is that value is basic to the universe, and includes but is not restricted to humans. Without value as a foundational aspect of existence, there is not a compelling ground for moral principles, except in some extended pragmatic sense of social contract.

It is a question of everything or nothing. On the descent from theism to naturalism to humanism to nationalism to tribalism to nepotism to egoism to nihilism all halts are arbitrary!

 

[Portofino]

Will try to respond to these honestly, with no sugar-coating or euphemistic waffling.

In this naturalistic context, then, there is nothing in the fact of sentience that makes it a preferable form of existence because there is no ground for preferential treatment in this naturalistic context.

That’s true – there is nothing that makes consciousness, even, preferable to non-consciousness. There is only the fact that we are conscious and prefer to remain so; or that we prefer pleasure to pain, life to death.

In such a universe, of course, you do not have to earn the right for you preference. It is just your preference. You don’t have to say, “I haven’t proven that life is more valuable than death; therefore, I have no right to prefer life.” You are free, in that sense.

then your existence or lack of it makes no difference, then why would murder be impermissible?

We’re living in a world with other people “just like us.” There is a necessary compromise there. For that reason, murder is socially impermissible (obviously, it is not impermissible according to nature, as any natural disaster easily demonstrates). The prohibition against murder is a social prohibition – it’s against the rules. It’s backed up, of course, through a criminal justice system. Our house, our rules.

The reason behind those laws is because the “subjective preferences” of millions of human beings have enough of a common denominator to align, and to create a set-up that “works” to serve those preferences. It does have a “beautiful” logic to it – “beautiful” in my estimation – that is similar to the intricate grammatical structure of a language. Somehow, society holds together and maintains at least a semblance of order.

A criminal justice system is the bare minimum – the social equivalent of heaven and hell (i.e., if you haven’t a clue as to why you should be moral, the avoidance of hell is always a good place to start ). It is based on the rules that we ourselves have created, based on our preferences (whenever another society, such as the Nazis, change the rules in such a way that is unacceptable to other societies, there is either the application of international law, or there is war).

Aside from this, there are all kinds of admittedly subjective reasons not to murder. For one, we didn’t evolve to naturally be homicidal maniacs or psychopaths, which means that not all human beings want to murder. Take the image of a mother nursing her child – that is an image of nurturing, which is also in our nature. Friendship and family relationships are in our nature, as well. We don’t only want violence; we also want peace.

There is also the more intellectual realization that an enemy is a potential friend and ally. Or the realization that he is part of your species. Or the realization – empathy – that he experiences many of the same feelings that you experience.

Whether they believe in God or not, however, there will always be those who don’t buy into the whole social contract idea. They break the rules, and engage in “unacceptable” behavior (strictly speaking, it is not immoral, simply unacceptable to that society). They lose their privileges in that society. Many human beings find such behavior “abhorrent” or “disgusting” or “monstrous.” That is a matter of taste. Whether it is a matter of natural taste is besides the point, but I do believe that it may be – social instincts as a product of evolution. Even criminals abhor those who abuse children, for example.

No “ought” could exist other than to promote a merely self-preservationist pragmatism. If we both want to survive, we should not kill each other, but what if I feel my survival is better promoted by doing away with you? There cannot be anything “morally” wrong in killing you because you have no inherent “value,” in fact, no one does. It might not be pragmatically feasible to kill others, but it also could very well be in some situations. Your strictly naturalistic context would necessarily be silent on such a question.

Again – it’s against the rules. That’s what wrong with it; it’s wrong because human beings (more numerous than the criminal minority) say that it’s wrong. It’s socially forbidden. We ultimately don’t have to prove that preference – neither to the universe, nor to the naysayer. It is democratic, in that sense – the prohibition against murder, stealing, or rape. What it’s grounded on, ultimately, is the preference for life over death, physical well-being over physical suffering, and the recognition of the kind of society that promotes those goals. We are free to have made those rules, and free to make life difficult for those that break them.

But you have the same problem even with an absolute morality. There will always be those who don’t subscribe to it and don’t believe in it. You still need jails for those individuals; and, as a dissuasion (which doesn’t always work, either) you have the threat of hell and of God’s punishment. But you will have those who reject God’s law, of course – just as you will always have those who reject social norms.

 

[Portofino]

On the descent from theism to naturalism to humanism to nationalism to tribalism to nepotism to egoism to nihilism all halts are arbitrary!

I don’t deny that Europe learned a devastating lesson, in the 20th century. They didn’t realize that the more accurate formulation of, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted” was, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.” The people of Europe – and of the western world generally – were *not *willing to accept the consequences. All of these theories – Social Darwinism and eugenics, biologically-based racism, fascism and communism – led to too much death and suffering.

Even people living in Germany had a very visceral “do or die” experience-- either they enjoyed living in war for 6 years; enduring the loss of millions of lives, including – potentially – their own; or, they did not enjoy it. When they went to those rallies in Nuremberg, this is not what they thought they were signing up for. Those rallies never talked about the death and suffering of the German people, except in the euphemistic terms of “sacrifice.”

Same thing with Soviet Communism: either people enjoyed it – either it was what they wanted – or they didn’t. Most people realized they didn’t want it. They must not have wanted it, because a wall was erected to prevent them from leaving.

In that sense, I would argue that an understanding of the pragmatic reasons why international law and human rights – including individual rights – exist, is actually stronger than ever.

What is most vulnerable to a morality based primarily on pragmatism, however, is sexual morals (“make love, not war”). I think that’s obviously what we’re experiencing today. Our society is pretty rock solid about certain prohibitions – rape is condemned in the strongest of terms (more than ever, if that’s possible); violent crime; murder; the sexual abuse of children (more than ever, if that’s possible). Rape and pedophilia are sexual crimes that are abhorred because they are violent or abusive in nature.

But a prohibition against homosexuality, pre-marital sex, artificial birth control suddenly don’t make as much sense, based on a purely pragmatic morality of “do no harm.” For many people, the supposed harm that homosexuality constitutes has not been demonstrated, and – if it does not harm others – they see no reason to prohibit it.

 

[Sair]

I don’t deny that Europe learned a devastating lesson, in the 20th century. They didn’t realize that the more accurate formulation of, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted” was, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.” The people of Europe – and of the western world generally – were *not *willing to accept the consequences. All of these theories – Social Darwinism and eugenics, biologically-based racism, fascism and communism – led to too much death and suffering.

Seen in a slightly different context, the barbarism of the Nazi regime and of Stalinist Russia - and probably North Korea in the present time (which, entertainingly, Christopher Hitchens compared to heaven, except that in the case of North Korea, you can still die and be free of the constant obligation to worship the “dear leader”) can be interpreted as a temporary reversion in the progression towards rational enlightenment. It’s not - and progress never is - a steadily upward trajectory. This progression, at least in moral terms, was the theme of Peter Singer’s speech at the Global Atheist Convention back in April this year.

 

[Portofino]

Consider the role of faith in the above insight. If God is ultimately in control of all and has the power, knowledge and benevolent will to bring about final good, then there is safety beyond all possibility and therefore no need for the self-destructive emotions you listed.

You are right – no matter which way one looks at it, freedom from fear can come only from insight and understanding.

What Epicurus did – and, to his credit, he was born before Christ–was seek to free human beings from fear, through understanding. Fear of a thunderstorm is a great example. A superstitious person would have said, “the gods are angry”, or simply have had a blind terror at thunder (or at a solar eclipse). Epicurus calmly spoke of the natural reasons for these phenomenon. Through understanding came calmness and freedom from fear.

Fear also produces blindness. When fear exists, one is frantic – maybe the gods are angry; maybe we have to sacrifice a few people to appease them; we’re not sure why the gods are angry, so let’s sacrifice: an animal; some crops; some people. Let’s do trial and error and see which offerings produce the best result (“fear is the parent of cruelty”).

We can’t even think clearly, we’re so afraid. Even in a battle situation, if a person panics, they will probably shoot their comrades, through the blindness of sheer terror. If someone is at such an extreme of panic, they can look at you and it is as if they do not even recognize you.

Insight into the behavior of others is also necessary to be free from fear. One’s reaction would tend to be a lot different if one sees only the anger in a person’s response, and not the underlying source of that anger – fear, confusion, hurt. It will be a lot different if one takes that anger at face value only, versus recognizing that it stems from insecurity.

An example that comes to mind is the spouse who is angry that one is going out with one’s friends, yet again. What you’ll hear is, “then go – see if I care. I could care less. Leave.” Of course, what they’re really trying to say – but can’t say openly – is more like the opposite.

Then there is behavior that stems from inner fear or insecurity. There’s a character from the film Goodfellas – Tommy (Joe Pesci)-- who illustrates this well. He is deeply, profoundly insecure. This is a kind of weakness, which is precisely the opposite of how he comes across. He has a chip on his shoulder. When someone tells him to “get his shine box” – because he used to shine shoes – he becomes homicidal with rage. He’s insecure because he used to be, indeed, the shoe-shine boy. He feels small. He constantly has to prove himself. No insult can go unavenged.

Later in the film, he kills an awkward kid who dares to defend himself verbally, a kid whom he had constantly berated (and, who ironically, occupied the same position as he himself did, when he used to shine shoes). He used to be the lackey, just like that kid. That kid is now standing up for himself, and he feels threatened and humiliated. That too shows profound weakness or insecurity – to feel threatened by this kid to such an extent.

A similar character study is achieved in Schindler’s List, when comparing Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) with Schindler (Liam Neeson). Goeth is the weaker of the two, by far. His sadism and abuse of those who are defenseless is an overcompensation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Seen in a slightly different context, the barbarism of the Nazi regime and of Stalinist Russia - and probably North Korea in the present time (which, entertainingly, Christopher Hitchens compared to heaven, except that in the case of North Korea, you can still die and be free of the constant obligation to worship the “dear leader”) can be interpreted as a temporary reversion in the progression towards rational enlightenment. It’s not - and progress never is - a steadily upward trajectory. This progression, at least in moral terms, was the theme of Peter Singer’s speech at the Global Atheist Convention back in April this year.

It takes a great deal of self-delusion to view the 30 million deaths of individuals at the hands of atheist or anti-theist governments during the past century as “a temporary reversion.” It might be asked, “Reversion from what?” The less costly French Revolution?

A trajectory headed where? To hundreds of millions of deaths? We are now at 42 million abortions per year in the world.

The enlightenment principle enshrined in the Casey Decision that each individual has the right to determine ultimate meaning for themselves has fully vindicated the deaths of 50 million American babies since Roe v Wade under the pretext that the rights of some to determine that meaning supersedes the rights of others to their very lives. The death toll as a result, now exceeds the genocidal toll of the past century. Another temporary reversion or a wake up call?

Portofino said,

*I don’t deny that Europe learned a devastating lesson, in the 20th century. They didn’t realize that the more accurate formulation of, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted” was, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.” The people of Europe – and of the western world generally – were not willing to accept the consequences. All of these theories – Social Darwinism and eugenics, biologically-based racism, fascism and communism – led to too much death and suffering. *

Now the death and suffering, the “consequences” are being borne by those incapable of mustering a voice, the unwanted silently suffering victims of abortion. The devastating lesson has not been learned, the insane theory is still being wrecked, though now upon silent victims, far from the eyes of a morally bankrupt culture, blindly, self-righteously taking offence any time real images of abortion are presented. The enlightenment myth is a demonic lie intended to avert our culture from facing its morally decrepit state. The consequences are worse now than ever, it’s just that we have learned to cover our eyes, close our ears and listen to the soothing enlightenment musac playing in our heads.

The enshrined right of individuals to determine their own meaning and values means simply the denial of truth. There is no truth except what one decides for oneself. The enlightenment gods help you if you attempt to convince others of your thoughts because that is a despicable act that threatens the rights of others to think for themselves, unless of course you argue in support of the foundational thesis that no one can possibly have access to the truth. It is Descartes’ radical doubt, not merely bereft of any answer, but in principle opposed to any answer. It is Plato’s cave where the governing doctrine is blow out any flickers of light because they threaten the rights of others to live in the dark. (The light might disturb the lurking rats and beasts that threaten from every direction.) It is radical skepticism that refuses to assess its own absurd premises.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But a prohibition against homosexuality, pre-marital sex, artificial birth control suddenly don’t make as much sense, based on a purely pragmatic morality of “do no harm.” For many people, the supposed harm that homosexuality constitutes has not been demonstrated, and – if it does not harm others – they see no reason to prohibit it.

I noticed that you didn’t include abortion in this list. Could it be because you recognize that real harm is being done to large numbers of individuals? Real harm is being disregarded as a cover for pre-marital sex and birth control because it is the natural consequence of a belief system that enshrines the individual right to unfettered pleasure seeking.

A case could be made that homosexuality is merely a convenient way to sidestep the entire issue since this gender orientation does an “end around” on the procreation predicament.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Morality is a law or code that persons subscribe to in governing actions – it is purely philosophical and arbitrary. When man does not believe in God and strive to embrace God’s law in entirety, he devises a moral code based not on any solid reality or truth but rather on his own passions and desires. The man of God despises murder for the truth that is God’s Word; the man of the world despises murder for the passions it invokes. The man of God will say that murder is wrong because God has decreed it so; the man of the world will say that murder is wrong because it just is, as if his arbitration meant anything.

 

[Portofino]

I noticed that you didn’t include abortion in this list. Could it be because you recognize that real harm is being done to large numbers of individuals? Real harm is being disregarded as a cover for pre-marital sex and birth control because it is the natural consequence of a belief system that enshrines the individual right to unfettered pleasure seeking.

A case could be made that homosexuality is merely a convenient way to sidestep the entire issue since this gender orientation does an “end around” on the procreation predicament.

You are right, I deliberately did not include abortion in this list, as it is problematic from a “do no harm” perspective.

As counterintuitive as it may sound at first blush, the biggest pragmatic obstacle to prohibiting abortion is that it is almost as difficult to enforce as a prohibition against suicide. It is hard to mandate that a woman remain pregnant against her will, for 9 months or approximately 270 days. The only effective means of preventing such abortions would be to detain pregnant women who were caught attempting to have one, and of keeping them under constant surveillance (like a suicide watch). Then there’s the question of penalties; if it is first-degree murder, should it be prosecuted as such?

If there were ever a way to find a means of bringing a child to term outside the womb of an unwilling mother, it would be much more feasible. One could require women with unwanted pregnancies to submit to a procedure for extracting the fetus, so that it can grow outside her womb. Then, when the baby is born, it could be adopted.

It doesn’t make things easier, that a woman is not visibly pregnant until after the first trimester. Until such time as she is visible, it is literally a private affair.

I’m much more reticent about the more subtle, psychological connections being made between premarital sex and abortion, or artificial birth control and abortion. From one perspective, artificial birth control could increase the prevalence of abortion, by fostering certain “attitudes” towards sex as being non-procreative in nature. From another, artificial birth control could – in the most pragmatic sense – prevent an abortion from having occurred in the first place. You could say that the seed was wasted through contraception, but – then again – it is wasted through lifelong celibacy, as well. All of those arguments about how, in effect, it is the same result (no pregnancy) but how the moral significance of the action is different, is a very particular way of looking at it. It gets a bit too philosophical (just as the distinction between a same sex couple and a couple where one partner is barren – no pregnancy, in both cases – gets a bit too philosophical). Legislation is much more pragmatic in nature.

And, of course, outlawing contraception is not realistic, either. Women actually have more of a stake in this question than men. A female has to think, “every time I have intercourse, I could get pregnant,” while the male attitude would be, at worst, “every time I have intercourse, she could pregnant.” No wonder that the male has a higher tolerance for risking an unwanted pregnancy. Nor does the male have to be pregnant for nine months; at worst, he has nine months to decide whether he wants to stick around or not. This problem can exist within marriage, as well; the male wants to have relations with his wife, but he doesn’t want her to use birth control. That is easier for him to say, if he’s not the one who’s been pregnant three or four times, already, or the one who’s been spending the most time raising the children.

 

[Sair]

It takes a great deal of self-delusion to view the 30 million deaths of individuals at the hands of atheist or anti-theist governments during the past century as “a temporary reversion.” It might be asked, “Reversion from what?” The less costly French Revolution?

A trajectory headed where? To hundreds of millions of deaths? We are now at 42 million abortions per year in the world.

The enlightenment principle enshrined in the Casey Decision that each individual has the right to determine ultimate meaning for themselves has fully vindicated the deaths of 50 million American babies since Roe v Wade under the pretext that the rights of some to determine that meaning supersedes the rights of others to their very lives. The death toll as a result, now exceeds the genocidal toll of the past century. Another temporary reversion or a wake up call?

The trend, over the course of human history, has been towards greater exercise of empathy, thanks in large part to the advance of rationality and a scientific understanding of the world. Peter Singer refers to the “expanding circle” of those included within the realm of moral consideration. So, yes - the horrors of the 20th century can be seen, in that light, as a temporary reversion from the overall trend.

As for the 42 million abortions, do you truly believe it would be better for these children to be born? Do you have a plan for how this vast population of new babies would be saved from abuse, abandonment, or death from starvation? That would almost certainly have been their fate in centuries past, before the availability of safe medical abortion procedures. Not to mention the numbers of mothers of these babies who would have died in childbirth. Of these 42 million abortions, how many do you think are performed when the foetus actually has any capacity to experience pain? The vast majority of abortions harm no sentient being.

You won’t convince me, therefore, that this is a greater moral outrage than - just to name one example - the abuses visited upon billions of fully sentient animals raised on industrial farms every year. This, too, we may hope, is a temporary reversion - organisations like Compassion in World Farming are part of the expanding circle too, working to include nonhuman animals within the framework of moral consideration.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You won’t convince me, therefore, that this is a greater moral outrage than - just to name one example - the abuses visited upon billions of fully sentient animals raised on industrial farms every year. This, too, we may hope, is a temporary reversion - organisations like Compassion in World Farming are part of the expanding circle too, working to include nonhuman animals within the framework of moral consideration.

We have a completely different perspective on this. Of course you won’t be convinced that abortion is a greater moral outrage because a great deal of your belief system hangs on your not accepting it as such.

You view human life in terms of certain capacities, I view a human being as an entity that changes over time. Your view is susceptible to problematic inconsistencies in how moral standing is applied.

The word sentience is ambiguous and can easily be abused in arguments involving animal rights vis a vis human rights. There is no proof that animals are capable of conscious awareness of pain over and above having physiological responses to neural trauma or stimuli.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Rational

Fall deeply in love and get married and have a wonderful family–Happiness

Go to work and earn money-wow!

Conquer a problem with one’s mind–beautiful; to learn how to love my kids

Live and experience life.

Get drunk–feel pain and sickness! Remove your rational powers of thinking clearly and using our free will

Murder–one cannot life with oneself

Beat a man almost to death with a baseball bat–experience grief

Fight in war–feel Hell

Leave your children–feel the pain when some other man raises your children, or no man

Beat up your parents–I cannot even imagine the psychological damage

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

 

[Peter_Plato]

The trend, over the course of human history, has been towards greater exercise of empathy, thanks in large part to the advance of rationality and a scientific understanding of the world. Peter Singer refers to the “expanding circle” of those included within the realm of moral consideration. So, yes - the horrors of the 20th century can be seen, in that light, as a temporary reversion from the overall trend.

This is debatable and assumes mere emotive response or fleeting feeling declarations count equally with discernible improvements in humane behaviour. The “expanding circle” is a touchy feely concept, but it is not clear that the treatment of other humans or even animals has improved. Abortion, the betrayal of the trust of spouse and children that occurs in higher rates of divorce, the genocidal acts of numerous governments, development of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, etc. do not demonstrate in any compelling way that the moral behaviour of humans has advanced. Even your observation that the treatment of animals in modern methods of harvesting livestock is deplorable shows that the “expanding circle of empathy” is more a modern myth than a reality.

 

[Portofino]

This is debatable and assumes mere emotive response or fleeting feeling declarations count equally with discernible improvements in humane behaviour. The “expanding circle” is a touchy feely concept, but it is not clear that the treatment of other humans or even animals has improved. Abortion, the betrayal of the trust of spouse and children that occurs in higher rates of divorce, the genocidal acts of numerous governments, development of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, etc. do not demonstrate in any compelling way that the moral behaviour of humans has advanced. Even your observation that the treatment of animals in modern methods of harvesting livestock is deplorable shows that the “expanding circle of empathy” is more a modern myth than a reality.

I can speak only for the west, and only with a general layman’s knowledge, but – if empathy is the standard – the advances are undeniable:

–Abolition of torture and of cruel and unusual punishment (when it occurs, it is a scandal)
–decreasing employment of the death penalty (in Europe, especially; in Washington Square Park, in New York, there were once public hangings)
–religious tolerance (the debates going on today are quiddities, in comparison with the Wars of Religion in 17th century France, for example)
–abolition of chattel slavery
–women’s rights in the voting booth and the workplace
–laws protecting women against domestic violence (“in 1882, Maryland was the first state to make ‘wife-beating’ a crime, punishable by a 1-year prison sentence or 40 lashes. Four years later, a North Carolina court took this progress many steps back, when they ruled that a man cannot be criminally charged on a domestic violence complaint unless there is permanent damage or the instance was ‘malicious beyond all reasonable bounds.”)
–child labor abolished (in the U.S., at least)
–general increase in worker’s rights (safe working conditions; OSHA)
–increase in the social safety net (a homeless child is unacceptable in modern-day America; in 19th century England, it was commonplace)
–greater awareness of animal rights (animal cruelty is a felony in some states)
–stricter laws on corporal punishment of children
–increased efforts at international law (the United Nations; “the UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save mankind from hell”–Dag Hammarskjold)
–strong condemnations of racism, backed up by legal protections
–strong condemnations of sexism, backed up by legal protections
–protecting the rights of homosexuals
–nationalism in Europe is moribund, as is cultural chauvinism (the French were once proud of their colonies; now, they are almost ashamed of them)
–the explosion of humanitarian organizations and initiatives – the Red Cross; Amnesty International; the Humane Society; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Greenpeace; the Nobel Peace Prize
–increased initiatives for pacifism and peace-keeping (the example of Gandhi; of Martin Luther King; of modern popes; of the Dalai Lama); increased public outcries against war

Today, “ecumenism” is the watchword. Buddhists breaking bread with Catholics, Catholics breaking bread with Protestants. Inter-faith dialogue. Compare this with the death sentence handed down to one of the early Anabaptists (1527):

“Michael Sattler shall be committed to the executioner. The latter shall take him to the square and there first cut out his tongue, and then forge him fast to a wagon and there with glowing iron tongs twice tear pieces from his body, then on the way to the site of execution five times more as above and then burn his body to powder as an arch-heretic.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can speak only for the west, and only with a general layman’s knowledge, but – if empathy is the standard – the advances are undeniable:

My point is that expressions of empathy should not be used as the standard for measuring moral improvement because expressions of empathy could very well cover up a degradation in the actual moral state of the culture. An expression of empathy could in fact be nothing more than a reflection of an individual’s own view of themselves as moral agents. Individuals have a great deal of ego investment in seeing themselves as upstanding and morally unimpeachable creatures (recall here Jesus’ words to the Pharisees as whitewashed sepulchres). If expressions of empathy allow us to be viewed by others and ourselves as upstanding moral creatures (at no or little cost in terms of actual moral effort,) then that expression is invaluable to a Pharisaic mentality, but worthless and possibly deceptive as a measure of real moral change.

When we closely analyze your case for claiming a rise in morality in the United States, many of the points are precisely "arms length” changes that the government or some other body puts into practice but make no demands on individual morality, except to the relatively few engaged in the behaviour. It makes us feel good about our moral righteousness as a society, but at no real cost to most of us as individuals. These instances are marked with ($)

Some of the instances below actually reflect a decrease in moral behaviour. For example, laws may be enacted precisely because of a rise in the problematic behaviour being addressed by the law. For example, a law restricting the speed limit to 100 kph (60 mph) is only necessary if you have vehicles capable of transgressing the law. So, in effect, some of the laws may have been promulgated precisely because of a decline in moral behaviour or that behaviour became so bad or so frequent that it required legal intervention. I’ll mark these with (#) Obviously some of these are debatable.

My main point is that these points, as expressions of empathy, are dubious as measures of real moral improvement among human beings.

–Abolition of torture and of cruel and unusual punishment (when it occurs, it is a scandal) ($)
–decreasing employment of the death penalty (in Europe, especially; in Washington Square Park, in New York, there were once public hangings) ($)
–religious tolerance (the debates going on today are quiddities, in comparison with the Wars of Religion in 17th century France, for example) ($)
–abolition of chattel slavery ($)
–women’s rights in the voting booth and the workplace ($)
–laws protecting women against domestic violence (“in 1882, Maryland was the first state to make ‘wife-beating’ a crime, punishable by a 1-year prison sentence or 40 lashes. Four years later, a North Carolina court took this progress many steps back, when they ruled that a man cannot be criminally charged on a domestic violence complaint unless there is permanent damage or the instance was ‘malicious beyond all reasonable bounds.”) :(#) :
–child labor abolished (in the U.S., at least) :(#) :
–general increase in worker’s rights (safe working conditions; OSHA) :(#) :
–increase in the social safety net (a homeless child is unacceptable in modern-day America; in 19th century England, it was commonplace)
–greater awareness of animal rights (animal cruelty is a felony in some states) :(#) :
–stricter laws on corporal punishment of children :(#) :
–increased efforts at international law (the United Nations; “the UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save mankind from hell”–Dag Hammarskjold) :($) : :(#) :
–strong condemnations of racism, backed up by legal protections
–strong condemnations of sexism, backed up by legal protections
–protecting the rights of homosexuals ($)
–nationalism in Europe is moribund, as is cultural chauvinism (the French were once proud of their colonies; now, they are almost ashamed of them) ($)
–the explosion of humanitarian organizations and initiatives – the Red Cross; Amnesty International; the Humane Society; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Greenpeace; the Nobel Peace Prize ($)
–increased initiatives for pacifism and peace-keeping (the example of Gandhi; of Martin Luther King; of modern popes; of the Dalai Lama); increased public outcries against war. (#)

Let me end with another point. When I grew up in the mid 1950s and early 1960s most families left houses and cars unlocked all the time. There was virtually no risk of your home being burglarized, vandalized or worse. Looking at crime statistics, in North America the crime rate quadrupled from 1965 to the early 1990s and has slightly declined since then. As an aside, this correlates very nicely to the decline in Church service attendance since the mid 1960s. It certainly argues against the use of “expressions of empathy” as a moral barometer to measure actual moral improvement.

In conclusion, the myth of heightened of empathy serves very nicely to shield our egos against facing the reality that the 20th century was the worst ever in terms of moral travesties committed by human beings and most of those being fueled by a lack of or loss of belief in God.

 

[tonyrey]

As for the 42 million abortions, do you truly believe it would be better for these children to be born? Do you have a plan for how this vast population of new babies would be saved from abuse, abandonment, or death from starvation?

That argument could be applied to anyone who is at risk: orphans, old people, the mentally retarded, the victims of natural disasters…

Of these 42 million abortions, how many do you think are performed when the foetus actually has any capacity to experience pain? The vast majority of abortions harm no sentient being.

If the sole objection to performing an abortion - or ending any life - is the capacity to experience pain the solution is simple: use anasthesia before killing the unwanted child - or adult!

 

[Portofino]

If expressions of empathy allow us to be viewed by others and ourselves as upstanding moral creatures (at no or little cost in terms ofactual moral effort

This seems true, though it is a hazard to which religious and secular cultures alike are prone. I also agree there is a difference between mere expressions of empathy – kind words, politeness – and sincere feelings of empathy(feelings one is willing to act on).

[/quote]

It’s a double-edged sword, isn’t it. Were people really better back then? In some ways, perhaps they were. They were more inclined to think of the duties owed to their parents, for example; or their communities. This too could have been a result of pressure to conform socially – to avoid the shame of being delinquent, for example, and dishonoring one’s family. In other ways, those same people could have been worse. Perhaps they understood and felt a bond with others who were like them, but were more troubled by outsiders or those who were different. It’s like the old question about whether things were better in the 1950’s. Better for whom?

In conclusion, the myth of heightened of empathy serves very nicely to shield our egos against facing the reality that the 20th century was the worst ever in terms of moral travesties committed by human beings and most of those being fueled by a lack of or loss of belief in God.

The 20th century taught hard-won lessons; but all of the things I mentioned are still (presumably) positive advances that did not exist in presumably more “faithful times” (and remember, torturing and burning alive religious dissidents was a product of a God-fearing Europe). Less secular times also put little value on religious tolerance, ironically (tolerance of other faiths). I’m not convinced that belief in God made a society better. What I’ve also seen are cases where religious tradition has resulted in decreased empathy or kindness (“I empathize with women, but they have a role and they need to stay in it”).
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradski]

As much as it is difficult to believe, there are figures that show that we are now living in an era that is the least dangerous of all time. That the twentieth century, despite the horrors of Pol Pot, the two World Wars, Stalinism and Mao, have had less people killed in armed conflict, as a proportion of the population, than at any other time.

But not to derail the thread. Maybe a subject for another.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As much as it is difficult to believe, there are figures that show that we are now living in an era that is the least dangerous of all time. That the twentieth century, despite the horrors of Pol Pot, the two World Wars, Stalinism and Mao, have had less people killed in armed conflict, as a proportion of the population, than at any other time.

But not to derail the thread. Maybe a subject for another.

This is definitely not true. The chart below is from R.J. Rummel’s University of Hawaii’s site on genocide and war. It is one of the most exhaustive studies I have seen. It is found here:

hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.2.GIF

Notice that Line 53 shows that casualties of war in the 20th century (110 million) comprised 4.437% of the total world population. Far higher than any other century. Peruse the War Deaths by % (sixth column). The 19th century, for example, was only 1.619%.

That casualty figure does not include the further estimated 192 million that were killed by government actions outside of war in the twentieth century, compared to the estimated 133 million in all previous centuries combined (See actual mid-value democide statistics in the last three columns).