P
Portofino
Guest
I think the dilemma is that, even if morality were a product of the evolution of the human mind, so too is the capacity for behaving non-morally. So it would seem that both the “moral mind” and the “immoral mind” would be a product of human evolution. Aggression and violence, for example, would be no less a part of our evolutionary heritage than cooperation.
I see limitations with a theistic morality as well, however. I’m not sure it helps if one says “morality is obligatory because God ordained it” when one responds, “why should I obey God?” The answer to that seems to be “because God commands you to”; but, so long as there is free will, moral obedience is not obligatory or even logically incontrovertible.
In those cases where you have someone saying “yes, it is objectively wrong to _____ ; who cares? If morality exists, why should I behave morally?” you would have to argue, it seems, “don’t you want to avoid the consequences of behaving immorally? Don’t you want to avoid hell?” But that is little different, in my mind, from a secular argument that says, “don’t you want to be moral, to avoid prison?”; or “don’t you want to be moral, because the families of those you hurt will come after you?”; or even, “don’t you want to be moral, because you would feel guilty acting otherwise?” In fact, there are many who would be more persuaded by the avoidance of jail or the retribution of the victims’ families, than the avoidance of hell; the former, at least, are more empirically obvious.
I also think that jail time for a thief or murderer, as well as desires for retribution from the families of the victim, would exist whether or not stealing and murder were objectively wrong. This is basic human self-interest – not wanting to harmed by others, and not wanting one’s loved ones to be harmed. A recognition that almost everyone feels this way – and that “living and letting live” is the only way to co-exist peacefully with one’s neighbors – does not require moral argument, just experience of the world. When you’ve gravely mistreated other people, or their loved ones, you will likely hear about it from them. If laws prohibiting murder or stealing ceased to exist tomorrow, as well as court systems, you would not have anarchy; instead, families would fill that vaccuum, and a man who raped someone’s daughter – or killed someone’s son – would be avenged by the family of the victim, or by someone hired by the family for that purpose. It wouldn’t matter if murder or theft was no longer considered legally wrong, nor even morally wrong; being the victim of a murder of a theft is not what people want for themselves, and it’s not what they want for their loved ones. That’s the selfish part. The altruistic part is in having the wisdom to recognize that individuals cannot expect others to grant them what they are unwilling to grant others; in other words, that the proposition “I’ll harm and steal from you but you’re not allowed to harm or steal from me”, is not a viable proposition, and that – even when it is feasible, through the application of greater strength – it is precarious at best, and cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Very true.
