Morality without God spinoff- Make a secular moral case

[John_Savage]

I have a theory. People who claim that they can make a secular case for a moral position assume that the moral consensus in their particular community would exist without the heavy lifting of previous generations and especially without the contribution of religion. Morality is natural, in the biological sense, or just reasonable.

That the morality they feel is natural and reasonable tends to reflect the positions of their political-social surroundings is just a coincidence (my friend has a book on morality from a college professor who thinks that reasonable morality just happens to be what 99% of 2000s liberal American college professors think is moral).

I’ve also observed that many secular philosophies are simplistic, like Google’s “Don’t be evil,” the Beatles, or any other feeling that can be fully expressed on a bumper sticker. I think this goes with my first claim, that people think morality just happens if you have good intentions (yes, I know that Catholic morality can be simplified to love your neighbor).

So, here’s the challenge:

You arrive on an island that practices (looking for things people still agree is bad) slavery, wife-beating, cannibalism, and animal cruelty. They have lush surroundings, lots of fish and minerals with which to trade so they’re not suffering from poverty. You meet with the town elders. I would like for you to convince them, using secular arguments, that what they’re doing is wrong.

 

[Rosella]

Did you deliberately choose a true historical situation, or did you not realize you are describing the Mayan and Aztec cultures that were rapidly and dramatically converted from all of those practices by the visit to Mexico of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

I conclude that when a group or culture is collectively cooperative with grave evil, mere rational arguments cannot save them. (Look at abortion in the USA.) I don’t believe it always take the miraculous appearance of the Mother of God, but it takes something frightening or startling to shock them back to a sensitivity to the natural law.

 

[vames]

Did you deliberately choose a true historical situation, or did you not realize you are describing the Mayan and Aztec cultures that were rapidly and dramatically converted from all of those practices by the visit to Mexico of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

No, they were converted because the Spanish empire wanted more power and more colonies. The Spaniards waged a war against these populations, conqured them, enslaved them and plundered them. This was evil and denounced as such even by Spanish priests and friars of that time.
pbs.org/opb/conquistadors/namerica/adventure2/b4.htm
pbs.org/opb/conquistadors/namerica/adventure2/b5.htm

 

[Charlemagne_II]

vames

No, they were converted because the Spanish empire wanted more power and more colonies. The Spaniards waged a war against these populations, conqured them, enslaved them and plundered them. This was evil and denounced as such even by Spanish priests and friars of that time.

In any case, the conversion did not take. They are still acting like savages South of the Border.

 

[Stillness]

What they’re doing is not wrong.

 

[John_Savage]

What they’re doing is not wrong.

I agree that that would be the logical secular argument or some variation of “what you’re doing is making me sad.”

I mostly wanted the contribution of secular moralists.

 

[Portofino]

You arrive on an island that practices (looking for things people still agree is bad) slavery, wife-beating, cannibalism, and animal cruelty. They have lush surroundings, lots of fish and minerals with which to trade so they’re not suffering from poverty. You meet with the town elders. I would like for you to convince them, using secular arguments, that what they’re doing is wrong.

I wouldn’t convince with theoretical arguments, especially if their God sanctioned all of these behaviors. Then it would simply be a case of pitting one God against another.

What I believe morality is based on, in practice, is self-interest. Rights themselves are based on someone’s interests actually being respected and listened to. Namely:

—Wife-beating. Are there wives that do not want to be beaten, but seem to have no say in the matter? (likely the case). Perhaps their problem is one of organization; they don’t the ability to say “we have a right not to be beaten,” because they don’t have the power to do so. I think the women’s movement in the U.S. is instructive, a matter of organization and “fighting back.”

Wife-beating – do you want someone else to beat your wife, in this tribal society? Or perhaps they at least have rules that say, “only I have the right to beat my wife, and no one else has the right to beat my wife.” Even there, rights are based on interests – in that case, the interests of the husband, who doesn’t want another man beating his wife indiscriminately.

–Slavery. Do I need to convince the slaves that they do not want to be slaves? Probably not, but they likely feel powerless to do anything about it. Again, if they organize and band together (Marx had a point there), they will have a voice and will be able to proclaim their rights. The other tool is empathy, which does not in itself require invocation of God. How would you feel if you were a slave, or someone you love? Humans are mammals and are capable of saying, “I do not want this for myself” and also “I do not want this for people I care about.” Get them to care about the other – by pointing out that’s other’s resemblance to them (“hath not a Jew eyes?”) – and you’ve succeeded in having them think morally, in terms of caring for the interests of others (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, is also about caring for the interests of others).

–Cannibalism – for sure, I do not want to be eaten! I think most of these tribes, in fact, tended to eat the corpses of their enemies, those from rival tribes. I think you would find in that hypothetical tribal culture that even cannibalism would have certain rules and regs, such as “I want to be able to walk around the village and not end up as dinner!”

So it’s interests that determine rights – if not altruistically, then selfishly – and that evolve into what we call morality, of which one possible definition is respect for the interests of others.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So it’s interests that determine rights – if not altruistically, then selfishly – and that evolve into what we call morality, of which one possible definition is respect for the interests of others.

All fine and good, except you haven’t definitively answered the question of “Whose interests when interests conflict?” Which is precisely the issue that moral principles are supposed to answer.

So, whose interests are you advocating SHOULD be considered at the expense of others when interests conflict and, more importantly, why?

The majority? The wealthy? The poor? The powerful? The beautiful? None of these? Whoever can shout/whine/scream the loudest? Whoever has the best chance of survival?

You left out the two crucial answers that moral considerations are supposed to settle.

You are losing your edge, Portofino!

 

[tonyrey]

What they’re doing is not wrong.

How do you know it is not wrong if you believe in nothing?

 

[Portofino]

All fine and good, except you haven’t definitively answered the question of “Whose interests when interests conflict?” Which is precisely the issue that moral principles are supposed to answer.

So, whose interests are you advocating SHOULD be considered at the expense of others when interests conflict and, more importantly, why?

The majority? The wealthy? The poor? The powerful? The beautiful? None of these? Whoever can shout/whine/scream the loudest? Whoever has the best chance of survival?

You left out the two crucial answers that moral considerations are supposed to settle.

You are losing your edge, Portofino!

I am feeling a bit rusty – haven’t participated in this or any forum in several months – but flattering to see it suggested that I ever had an edge, to begin with!

“Who’s interests when interests conflict”; I know this will sound disturbing to many of us, but it’s largely a question of the hard fought achievement of a “balance of power”, of sorts – a compromise between competing interests. Speaking up – fighting back – “acting up” – and, in the most extreme case, actually taking up arms, are how rights are actually acquired in our society, I think.

The right for women to vote was a battle, largely fought by women themselves (and by those who supported them). There were ideals of equality, but – in my view – what undergirds those ideals are the interests of human agents, in this case the expressed interests – the wants and desires – of women.

Martin Luther King didn’t get what he wanted for the black community, so he organized boycotts, as we know. He also tried to rally support for the ideals of race equality. Even then, though, these ideals find their origin in the interests of human beings that desperately, passionately want to be treated as equal. Gandhi obviously fought a battle in India, including boycotts of his own against the British.

He fought for Indian interests by showing that, if the British do not give the Indians what they want, British interests will suffer. It made it in their selfish interest to grant the Indians freedom. This was simply what was pragmatically necessary, and why the battle he fought was, indeed, a battle.

Agree or disagree with the politics, this is the same battle being fought today by the gay community. They are speaking out, quite vocally, and using existing laws – the U.S. Constitution – to make a case to be able to fight for their perceived interests.

When interests conflict – as they did, most dramatically, in the United States in the 1860’s – you had secession of one group of individuals from another group of individuals, followed by a declaration of war. Interests conflicted, most dramatically, in the Europe of 1939 – and there again, you had war and bloodshed.

Interests conflicted, most dramatically, in the events leading up to the American Revolution, as well. Unfortunately, “might makes right” – or makes rights – in these battles. One side prevails, the other loses.

In the United States of today, interests obviously conflict in the gay marriage debate, and a quite effective rule of thumb that exists per the U.S. Constitution – adopted under conditions of peace – is that great freedom should be allowed to the individual (the pursuit of their interests), so long as that freedom does not demonstrably harm the rights (the interests) of others.

I think the United States Constitution is intelligent because it has the foresight to recognize that the protection of minority rights – and the guarantee of individual liberties – is the only way to keep the peace, in a society. Societies that don’t give a darn about their citizens’ interests are police states, maintained only through violence and threats (and constantly under threat of armed revolution or of civil war).

Countries that persecute minorities also contribute to wars – for example, in Europe, Protestants fled Catholic France, aligning themselves with Protestant powers abroad – and you had, for example, the wars of religion.

So, as tempting as it is to sustain or promote social inequalities – with spectacular winners and abject losers – such inequalities in a society only foment social unrest. As it is, the US is relatively peaceful only because (despite social inequalities) the poor – for the time being – are convinced that they are, in the words of John Steinbeck, “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” If they just work harder, they too will be rich. In a country like France, where there is a much more pessimistic – or, perhaps, realistic – perception of social mobility, social unrest is greater (more frequent strikes, for example).

 

[seakelp]

“Your society would profit more if it were able to harness, rather than waste, raw human capital. Instead of beating women and slaves, provide them with small plots of land on which they will grow crops. In return for your protection and guidance, they will give you a portion of their crops at harvest time.”

Capitalism, dude.

 

[John_Savage]

Thanks.

Interesting. Some people would use empathy, others would try to foment rebellion, and others would say that it’s in the interests of the powerful, in the long run, to change.

Portofino:

I agree with you, but none of those movements were pure Marxist dialectic. There was a great deal of philosophy and morality being discussed. Abolitionists and MLK used religious arguments against slavery and inequality, for example.

 

[grannymh]

So, here’s the challenge:

You arrive on an island that practices (looking for things people still agree is bad) slavery, wife-beating, cannibalism, and animal cruelty. They have lush surroundings, lots of fish and minerals with which to trade so they’re not suffering from poverty. You meet with the town elders. I would like for you to convince them, using secular arguments, that what they’re doing is wrong.

The secular moral case I would offer is one sentence, no more, no less.
It is-- “The human person is worthy of profound respect.”

 

[John_Savage]

Thinking about it, I should have added making fun of the mentally disabled.

 

[Portofino]

Thinking about it, I should have added making fun of the mentally disabled.

I think values like not laughing at someone’s disabilities initially may have evolved out of simple politeness.

Human nature being what it is, what is funny to a stranger may be heartbreaking to a parent, or – at the very least – something that would arouse compassion and the desire to help. Now if some stranger is pointing and laughing at your kid, that could arouse a feeling of being deathly offended. You will confront that person, angrily.

I saw a case like that in a deli in NYC. A woman – from some country on the other side of the world – asked the guy beyond the counter for French fries at 8 o’clock in the morning. He laughed at her – not even necessarily unkindly, but still somewhat having fun at her expense. He may have even shared the joke with a fellow employee.

Next thing you know, her three brothers are at the counter, angrily confronting the employee with words such as “you laugh at my sister?” Things quickly escalated, with threats such as “I break your legs”; one brother picked up a bread roll and threw it at the employee; another spit at him.

It was very “Old World”, like you would expect in an agrarian society where these brothers may have been goat-herders defending their sister’s honor, like in old Sicily.

Through something like that, I could easily see how politeness evolved – holding doors, saying sorry if you bump into someone – namely, a means of keeping the peace.

You could make other arguments about empathy for someone who is mentally disabled, that also are not too much of a stretch for human beings – after all, with a parent, empathy for one’s kid is all but natural (“my kid deserves respect”). So the argument “how would you feel if that were your kid being laughed at” or “how would you feel if that were you” is not too much of a stretch for the human psyche, and is a form of refraining from insult that is actually sincere.

 

[Pugsly]

I have a theory. People who…You meet with the town elders. I would like for you to convince them, using secular arguments, that what they’re doing is wrong.

Here is the secular case for morality without God.....(perhaps you will recognize it):

The world evolved randomly. There is no god…no meaning or purpose…We are, therefore, utterly free to do whatever we want! But, then…that’s the first problem…we are also free to harm each other. Such a world is naturally divided between the predator and the prey…the Strong and the Weak.

Premise #1…Everyone is born free to enjoy everything we desire…but for the fact that The world is naturally divided between the Strong and the Weak…and the Strong must be CONTROLLED…or the Weak will never be free.

Premise #2…For people to fully realize their free enjoyments…the problem of the Strong must be addressed. If you are not for controlling the Strong…then YOU are part of the problem…YOU are “evil”.

Premise #3…If you see the world divided between the Strong and the Weak, and you are for CONTROLLING the Strong and helping the Weak to be free…then you are Empathetic. You are “good”.

Premise #4…The natural world is morally divided between the Strong and the Weak…the Empathetic and the Manipulative…those who seek equality in all things vs. those who speak of hierarchical inequalities

Premise #5…Those who work for herding the Weak into powerful groups to control the Strong…are doing a great service…vs…those evil people who speak of individual freedom and hierarchical concepts like religion

Premise #6…The goal of the human race is to achieve a worldwide government that imposes control over all sources of Strength and lifts up the Lowly…a government that imposes Empathy amid world peace and progress and human enjoyment. A government that will not tolerate unequal speech or hierarchical thinking…perhaps jailing or executing the religious and those who manipulate others

 

[John_Savage]

I think you can say Portofino’s comment on the previous page (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10562650&postcount=7) about the solution to this island’s problem being the rising up of the oppressed would follow the reasoning of this post.

Here is the secular case for morality without God…(perhaps you will recognize it):

The world evolved randomly. There is no god…no meaning or purpose…We are, therefore, utterly free to do whatever we want! But, then…that’s the first problem…we are also free to harm each other. Such a world is naturally divided between the predator and the prey…the Strong and the Weak.

Premise #1…Everyone is born free to enjoy everything we desire…but for the fact that The world is naturally divided between the Strong and the Weak…and the Strong must be CONTROLLED…or the Weak will never be free.

Premise #2…For people to fully realize their free enjoyments…the problem of the Strong must be addressed. If you are not for controlling the Strong…then YOU are part of the problem…YOU are “evil”.

Premise #3…If you see the world divided between the Strong and the Weak, and you are for CONTROLLING the Strong and helping the Weak to be free…then you are Empathetic. You are “good”.

Premise #4…The natural world is morally divided between the Strong and the Weak…the Empathetic and the Manipulative…those who seek equality in all things vs. those who speak of hierarchical inequalities

Premise #5…Those who work for herding the Weak into powerful groups to control the Strong…are doing a great service…vs…those evil people who speak of individual freedom and hierarchical concepts like religion

Premise #6…The goal of the human race is to achieve a worldwide government that imposes control over all sources of Strength and lifts up the Lowly…a government that imposes Empathy amid world peace and progress and human enjoyment. A government that will not tolerate unequal speech or hierarchical thinking…perhaps jailing or executing the religious and those who manipulate others

 

[Portofino]

Here’s another thought on the matter I just had – that so much of inter-personal relationships (as well as social ones, between different groups), are based on this simple logic:

–“you want respect and consideration, yes? Well I (we) want that for myself (ourselves) too. What’s so difficult about that to understand? I’m a person, just like you are.” So it’s not, in actuality, as theoretical as saying “how would I like it if someone did that to me,” but rather someone who is in your face, reminding you of it – “how would you like it, if someone did that to you?”

Where I think that takes us is the realization, “I want to be treated with respect – you want to be treated with respect – he and she want to be treated with respect. Everyone wants to be treated with respect.” From this I conclude, “the human being deserves to be treated with respect.”

It’s not a claim on the animal kingdom – lions, alligators, or sharks don’t respect us-- and it’s not a claim on nature. But it’s a claim that binds human beings to each other, indeed a “contract” of sorts; but we don’t speak of it merely as a contract, we speak of it as a fact. And, on the human level at least, it has indeed become a fact.

But I think it’s fair to point out that all of this can be true, and still be part of some divine will – merely the means by which the divine will is discovered, through the concrete needs and wants of humanity. It’s just something that, at best, a believer and non-believer can agree upon, regardless of whether they believe it ultimately has a divine sanction.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino
**
But I think it’s fair to point out that all of this can be true, and still be part of some divine will – merely the means by which the divine will is discovered, through the concrete needs and wants of humanity. It’s just something that, at best, a believer and non-believer can agree upon, regardless of whether they believe it ultimately has a divine sanction. **

Yes, in Catholic theology this is called the natural law and it does have a divine sanction.

 

[Portofino]

Portofino
**
But I think it’s fair to point out that all of this can be true, and still be part of some divine will – merely the means by which the divine will is discovered, through the concrete needs and wants of humanity. It’s just something that, at best, a believer and non-believer can agree upon, regardless of whether they believe it ultimately has a divine sanction.**

Yes, in Catholic theology this is called the natural law and it does have a divine sanction.

Agreed