Why should one follow the moral law?

[Leela]

Now I’ve had more than enough conversations with theists to anticipate the coming objection: “If there is no God, then why would we need to be concerned for others, why wouldn’t we be running around raping and pillaging?” The simple answer for most people is, “because we are not sociopaths.” People like that exist, of course, but psychology has given us an idea of what this pathology is and how this pathology comes about. A sociopath’s self-conception contains no relations to others, either due to genetics or because of absent or abusive parents or some combination of the two. The sociopath is not a person who has given up on certain ideas about ultimate reality, but is a person who never developed trust for loving parents in early childhood. Children do not grow up to be sociopaths because they lacked the right metaphysical foundation, but rather because they lacked loving homes.

So this sociopath is a lot like the Cartesian skeptic–a philosophical boogie man that we are supposedly supposed to have to answer for. If we really were sociopaths, then we would indeed have no good answer to the question of “why aren’t we all thieves and murders and rapists,” but thank goodness we are not sociopaths. Our self-conceptions do include relations to others. Caring for those close to us comes naturally to us. We love at least some others as we love ourselves–not “like we love ourselves” but “as ourselves” in that some others literally are ourselves to some degree. The more we can expand and deepen this web of relations that we identify as part of ourselves so that our selves extend beyond our physical bodies, the more morally developed we are. We don’t need to think of ourselves as sociopaths that need to be restrained, but rather humans concerned with relating to other humans who need to be nurtured, especially when we are young, in order to develop the trust in other humans that makes progressive expansion and deepening of this web of relations possible.

 

[Leela]

Theists tend to misunderstand what we are getting at. They ask, why are you trying to undermine our moral standards? What is so wrong with setting high standards? Well, nothing if we actually can say that we have the end in mind for what perfection is, as the Christians think they actually do. A concrete example is the debate about sex education. The Christian Right insists on “abstinence only” eduction while more politically pragmatic people point out that “abstinence only” education does not result in the desired end of less unwanted pregnancies and lower incidence of sexually transmitted disease. (That may or may not be a valid claim. I’m not arguing one way or the other in this essay.) But that’s not really the point to the Christian Right. There is a standard of behavior, they say, and we should not send mixed messages about whether or not it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage. Just because we know that some people will fail to meet the standard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t set a clear standard. Again, they want to know, what is so wrong with having high standards? We can answer, I wouldn’t say that your standard is too high so much as too orthodox. It is an attempt to make our historical practices eternal and a limit to the imagination for possibilities of an even better future. A pragmatist may come to the same conclusion as the Christian Right that “abstinence only” sex education is the way to go, but it won’t be because there is an eternal “high standard” to be discovered for how humans are supposed to behave.

The difference between liberal pragmatism and conservative orthodoxy when seen from the liberal perspective is that morality is not so much about what we should forbid, but who we should open ourselves up to and how we can better meet their needs. The movie fable Chocolat starring Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp illustrates the difference in these ethics when the young priest near the end of the movie tells his pious congregation:

"I think we can't go around measuring our goodness by what we don't do - by
what we deny ourselves, what we resist and who we exclude. I think we've got to
measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create and who we include."

From the orthodox perspective, pragmatists who don’t approach inquiry with the desire to understand the world so much as to change the world are putting the cart before the horse. But liberal pragmatists don’t think the future needs to be very much constrained by the present. It is more constrained by our imaginations. Personally, I think that the conservatism provides an important service in helping preserve what is good about the present while liberalism keep us from being constrained from moving toward a better furture. Some good balance between the two at a minimum keeps society from dieing through stagnation and degenerating into chaos, but pragmatism, being future-oriented, I think tends to favor the liberal perspective that we have erred toward keeping the bad in our failure of imagination for the future.

While Christians hope for escape from the world into another realm after death, pragmatists see that we have been able to make our present better than our past and have hope for an even better world for our grandchildren in the future. Christianity reifies a concept of perfection while the pragmatists, as described by Rorty, thinks “the present is a transitional stage to something which might, with luck, be unimaginably better” and favors “production of the novel over contemplation of the eternal.” Reifying Perfection puts undue limits on our imaginations. Rorty explains the importance of imagination:

"...we see both intellectual and moral progress not as a matter of getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right, but as an increase in imaginative power. We see imagination as the cutting edge of cultural evolution, the power which--given peace and prosperity--constantly operates so as to make the human future richer than the human past. Imagination is the source of new scientific pictures of the physical universe and of new conceptions of possible communities. It is what Newton and Christ, Freud and Marx, had in common: the ability to redescribe the familiar in unfamiliar terms..."

I hope you can see the connection to the theme of this blog, “Atheistic Hope.” Christian theology includes holding up an ideal standard of the perfect human being for us to aspire to, while simultaneously teaching that we can never actually achieve our aspiration. Pragmatists substitute for the goal of unachievable Christian perfection the goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present. Pragmatists don’t agree that we have any idea of what the perfect human being is like or whether such a concept is useful, and note that without knowledge of what perfection is, we would never know if we have achieved it anyway. Pragmatists and Christians agree that human perfection is an unachievable goal but disagree about whether an unachievable goal is a good goal to have. Christians claim to have knowledge, but pragmatists like Rorty who are skeptical of knowledge claims would like to “substitute hope for knowledge.”

 

[Leela]

I’ve described where these perspectives stand, but pragmatism doesn’t offer us a way of distinguishing between which of these views is the correct one. Pragmatists also don’t think any philosophical system can hope to do that. They note that while some religions and philosophies claim to have such a foundation to make the claim that their given perspective is the single correct one, such metaphysical foundations are a dime a dozen. The may have the virtue of being consistent within themselves, but Thomas Aquinas’s dictum “whenever you reach a contradiction, make a distinction” explains why it is not so hard for religions and philosophies to be self-consistent. We have no way of adjudicating between the various self-consistent religions and philosophical systems without begging all the basic questions. Theists hope to bridge the gap through faith, but theists of different brands have separate irreconcilable “foundations” for their beliefs, so from the nonbeliever’s perspective, faith does not avail anyone.

Pragmatists think that the best we can do is to tell our stories, “to redescribe the familiar in unfamiliar terms” that spark imagination for “new conceptions of possible communities.” We aren’t going to be able to answer the Nazi by appealing to a philosophical foundation for our beliefs. If the Nazi is a sociopath, we aren’t going to be able to answer at all. The appropriate instrument of conversation in that case is law backed by police and guns. If Rorty is right, a film such as “Milk” or “Hotel Rwanda” and conversations about such films have a far better chance of influencing culture than any of his own essays. Rorty says that

"...what [pragmatists] hope is not that the future will conform to a plan, will fulfil an immanent teology, but rather that the future will astonish and exhilarate. Just as the fans of the avant garde go to art galleries wanting to be astounded rather than hoping to have any particular expectation fulfilled..."

He claims that traditional philosophy, and I would add theology, “has been an attempt to lend the past the prestige of the eternal.” A view of inquiry as seeking eternal truths puts undue limits on our imagination of possibilities for the future, while it is human creative endeavor that offers a hope of a better future where people progress morally in seeing one another as also themselves.

 

[Thales]

Thank you for the explanation on Pragmatism. Not sure how familiar others are with this philosophy, but I have only heard of it in some sort of practical sense. Not that I’m complaining, because I think it was necessary to understand your perspective, but can you boil it down a bit to the essence of the thing.

I don’t want to think you are saying all standards are misleading and there is never a truth. Is there truth in mathematics? Can we not say for sure 2 + 2 =4?

I am an artist, a painter, and animator and my imagination can be beautiful, uplifting, and awefully terrifying at times. I don’t want the future shaped by my imagination. I accept Catholicism because its moral standards and call to obedience keep my imagination in check, otherwise I think I may be a wicked man.

Forgive me if my retort is sloppy, just a few initial reactions, please correct me where I am misunderstanding.

 

[4Horsemen]

Although this adage may sound trite, we do good and avoid evil due to a “law written in our hearts.” Whether we are non-theists or believers, the Holy Spirit will blow where He will touching all people of all times. If we are not sociopaths, we know that when we’ve done something outside the moral law (Ten Commandments), something within (conscience?) pricks at us until we either bury or repress the misdeed, which may come out at a later date or own up to it.

If we truly love, we don’t operate just to avoid evil, but to even “lay down one’s life for a friend” in the example of Jesus. Not to say that a non-theist can’t jump into a river to save someone, but certainly a Christian should do what is possible to save another, whether that person is in physical danger or spiritual danger of losing his/her soul. Hence, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

---

“In those respects the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself.” (St. Bernard)

 

[Oreoracle]

Although this adage may sound trite, we do good and avoid evil due to a “law written in our hearts.” Whether we are non-theists or believers, the Holy Spirit will blow where He will touching all people of all times. If we are not sociopaths, we know that when we’ve done something outside the moral law (Ten Commandments), something within (conscience?) pricks at us until we either bury or repress the misdeed, which may come out at a later date or own up to it.

Welcome, 4Horsemen.

I don’t think the Ten Commandments are “written in our hearts”. Adultery doesn’t naturally feel wrong, because one is not born with the concept of marriage, but conditioned to have it. Neither does using God’s name in vain, failing to observe the Sabbath, or coveting.

 

[Oreoracle]

Most egoists don’t admit they have imperfect knowledge of what others want. They’re not even interested in what others want. Their main interest is their own gratification and satisfaction.

I suppose we’re talking about two different sects. I’ve only met one egoist, but I’ve read some of their main arguments.

A loving God would hardly create us to be unhappy.

I agree, but that doesn’t answer the question.

 

[Leela]

Thank you for the explanation on Pragmatism. Not sure how familiar others are with this philosophy, but I have only heard of it in some sort of practical sense. …can you boil it down a bit to the essence of the thing.

Pragmatism is a method for clarifying our thoughts and settling philosophical disputes by always asking about the consequences of beliefs in lived experience. It is a common misconception that pragmatism is about being pragmatic in the sense of being practical. Rather for philosophical pragmatism, being pragmatic means that we are always grounding our philosophical talk in practice.

From this perspective, beliefs are habits of actions. To believe something is to be prepared to act in certain ways under certain circumstances. As a nonbeliever concerned about religious dogmatism, I have been occasionally asked why I should care about other’s religious beliefs. If beliefs are habits of action, we can see that there is indeed cause for concern about many of the religious beliefs that others hold.

The test for the truth of a belief is always about where that belief would lead us if we were to believe it and whether or not it helps us achieve our desired ends. William James made pragmatism famous but credited Charles S. Pierce with coining the term “pragmatism” and first formulating the pragmatic maxim: “Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.”

Pragmatists take a Darwinian view of language and truth. They suppose that language evolved from less sophisticated grunts and growls as a tool to solve human problems. Because it was useful to get other humans on board with their projects, the practice of using more sophisticated language led to more successful action. Pragmatists ask rhetorically, “at what point did our sentences stop being tools for coping with reality and start being representations of reality?” This question is rhetorical because there is no point in time that could be pointed to. Language has always been a tool and still is. Language doesn’t need to correspond with some essence of Truth to be useful, it just needs lead us to success in our goals.

If language is a tool, then we simply don’t need this notion of correspondence for truth to have meaning. In what way could a tool like a hammer be said to correspond with reality? Why would we want it to? Like a hammer, language is a way of coping with reality not representing it. In what way could a sentence like “there exist uncountable infinities” represent or correspond to reality or not? Pragmatic belief or disbelief of a sentence leads to verifiably successful or unsuccessful action by which the truth of such sentences can be justified.

In adopting this pragmatic perspective, we drop the question, “what ahistorical truths can we know?” and replace it with the question, “how we can we create a future that is better than the present?” It is always in the future where we look to have our beliefs validated. In this way, pragmatism is a philosophy of hope rather than certainty. We pragmatists hope for a better world, but we don’t claim to know with any certainty what the world ought to be like so as to be better other than to say that the world should have more good things and less bad things. As Richard Rorty put it, “what [pragmatists] hope is not that the future will conform to a plan, will fulfil an immanent teleology, but rather that the future will astonish and exhilarate.”

I don’t want to think you are saying all standards are misleading and there is never a truth. Is there truth in mathematics? Can we not say for sure 2 + 2 =4?

When we say that a belief such as “2+2=4” is, as far as we know, true, pragmatists are saying that, as far as we know, there is no other belief that is a better habit of action.

As for your comments about “standards,” pragmatists think we should stop worrying about whether we have a philosphical foundation for the claims we want to make since they don’t think that any of the various “foundations” can do anything other than beg all the important questions over the others. We should give up worrying about wether our beliefs are philosphically well-grounded and instead worry about whether we have been imaginative enough to think of better alternatives to our current beliefs.

I am an artist, a painter, and animator and my imagination can be beautiful, uplifting, and awefully terrifying at times. I don’t want the future shaped by my imagination. I accept Catholicism because its moral standards and call to obedience keep my imagination in check, otherwise I think I may be a wicked man.

Physical reality and the community that you hope to justify your beliefs to will keep your imagination properly in check. You don’t have to worry about conjuring devils and demons or anything if you let your imagination run wild. I’m just asking whether you think there is hope that the future can be even better than the present. But I get the sense that people in this forum don’t think that the present is any good which may explain the disposition to hope for an alternative realm that we can escape into rather than to hope for making the world a better place. That disposition was very understandable in the misery of Europe in the middle ages, but today people seem to feel that they have good reason to hope for a better world for their grandchildren and are less inclined to find it important to imagine a heaven. I think there is even a movement with Christianity to think of the Kingdom of God that Jesus talked about as something we can work to create rather than somewhere we go after we die.

 

[4Horsemen]

Welcome, 4Horsemen.

I don’t think the Ten Commandments are “written in our hearts”. Adultery doesn’t naturally feel wrong, because one is not born with the concept of marriage, but conditioned to have it. Neither does using God’s name in vain, failing to observe the Sabbath, or coveting.

I don’t think it’s only true for the Christian that there is some knowledge of wrong done. It’s most obvious that wrong/evil is done when it comes to murder, although people can twist their consciences and rationalize it away–but not completely away, as God will be their Judge. In Genesis, Cain knew he did evil when he killed Abel.

It seems, though, that we must have an “informed conscience”-- one enhanced by the teachings of the Church and understanding of the Natural Moral Law. If you read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, you’ll note that he starts out with the idea that something inside “tells” us to try and save a drowning person. We can ignore this “something” but we know that it is the “right” thing to do.

As for your example of adultery, surely in our Christian culture (even now post-Christian), we are imbued with the understanding of what is basically right and wrong. The same may not be regarded by pagans (meaning “heathen”) living in remote areas whose conscience is not informed to the fullest extent, but there must be some basic understanding of the Golden Rule:: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (even in a pragmatic way, which, admittedly, is not the same as our understanding of morality).

Perhaps someone can clarify.

 

[Thales]

I don’t think the Ten Commandments are “written in our hearts”. Adultery doesn’t naturally feel wrong, because one is not born with the concept of marriage, but conditioned to have it. Neither does using God’s name in vain, failing to observe the Sabbath, or coveting.

I don’t think morality is written on our hearts either. A common presumption people seem to make is that people are basically good. I don’t want to go so far as to say people are basically bad but there is the aspect of concupiscence, our tendency towards evil due to our fallen nature. If we were basically good and had this code written into our hearts for us to learn from ourselves God would not have so blatantly disclosed the things He has, commanding us to transmit them throughout all lands down the generations. The delivery of the ten commandments is a sign to me that we need to be taught what we ought to do and it doesn’t come naturally.

From Leela, Post #21​

Now I’ve had more than enough conversations with theists to anticipate the coming objection: “If there is no God, then why would we need to be concerned for others, why wouldn’t we be running around raping and pillaging?” The simple answer for most people is, “because we are not sociopaths.” People like that exist, of course, but psychology has given us an idea of what this pathology is and how this pathology comes about. A sociopath’s self-conception contains no relations to others, either due to genetics or because of absent or abusive parents or some combination of the two. The sociopath is not a person who has given up on certain ideas about ultimate reality, but is a person who never developed trust for loving parents in early childhood. Children do not grow up to be sociopaths because they lacked the right metaphysical foundation, but rather because they lacked loving homes.

So this sociopath is a lot like the Cartesian skeptic–a philosophical boogie man that we are supposedly supposed to have to answer for. If we really were sociopaths, then we would indeed have no good answer to the question of “why aren’t we all thieves and murders and rapists,” but thank goodness we are not sociopaths. Our self-conceptions do include relations to others. Caring for those close to us comes naturally to us. We love at least some others as we love ourselves–not “like we love ourselves” but “as ourselves” in that some others literally are ourselves to some degree. The more we can expand and deepen this web of relations that we identify as part of ourselves so that our selves extend beyond our physical bodies, the more morally developed we are. We don’t need to think of ourselves as sociopaths that need to be restrained, but rather humans concerned with relating to other humans who need to be nurtured, especially when we are young, in order to develop the trust in other humans that makes progressive expansion and deepening of this web of relations possible.​

I’m not sure if this is the exact recipe for a sociopath, but nonetheless a society will probably produce sociopaths at the same rate whether transcendent moral law is in place or not. The same, Christianity will not prevent the creation of a sociopath here and there. There also would probably not be an immediate vast increase in rape, murder, and pillage. What would increase are the small transgressions. I’m afraid the average person with normal families and stable mental health will begin to rationalize what we would call “bad”. Who does it hurt if I just cheat on this test or on my wife just this once, especially if I’m sure no one will find out? I’m hungry but forgot my wallet, how much harm can be done if I steal a $2 sandwich. I cannot afford to carry this child to term and raise it the way I think it should be raised, having this abortion will be best for it and myself. Might I be committing murder? Some would say that but I won’t call it that. How can it be bad if it seems to have such a fine outcome?

Things would not crumble into chaos, but I could see laws of the state gradually erode and become ineffective as a means of perpetuating and protecting society. We will begin to make laws protecting evils and condemning the good based on, say one group’s ability to organize, make a rational case, and petition a government.

Morality puts a proper constraint on what we would like to do, even if it seems to be for the best at the time, by suggesting what we ought to do. Transcendence gives it authority.

 

[Leela]

From Leela, Post #21​

…The sociopath is not a person who has given up on certain ideas about ultimate reality, but is a person who never developed trust for loving parents in early childhood. Children do not grow up to be sociopaths because they lacked the right metaphysical foundation, but rather because they lacked loving homes.
…​

I’m not sure if this is the exact recipe for a sociopath, but nonetheless a society will probably produce sociopaths at the same rate whether transcendent moral law is in place or not. The same, Christianity will not prevent the creation of a sociopath here and there. There also would probably not be an immediate vast increase in rape, murder, and pillage. What would increase are the small transgressions. I’m afraid the average person with normal families and stable mental health will begin to rationalize what we would call “bad”. Who does it hurt if I just cheat on this test or on my wife just this once, especially if I’m sure no one will find out? I’m hungry but forgot my wallet, how much harm can be done if I steal a $2 sandwich. I cannot afford to carry this child to term and raise it the way I think it should be raised, having this abortion will be best for it and myself. Might I be committing murder? Some would say that but I won’t call it that. How can it be bad if it seems to have such a fine outcome?

Things would not crumble into chaos, but I could see laws of the state gradually erode and become ineffective as a means of perpetuating and protecting society. We will begin to make laws protecting evils and condemning the good based on, say one group’s ability to organize, make a rational case, and petition a government.

Morality puts a proper constraint on what we would like to do, even if it seems to be for the best at the time, by suggesting what we ought to do. Transcendence gives it authority.

Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” We should convince them that we need to be concerned about hurting others because it has consquences for others. It is the power of human imagination to put ourselves in another’s shoes that will help us progess morally. Psychologists tell us that teaching children only about the threat of personal consequences for their behavior toward others results in sociopaths. Teaching our children to do what a Church commands out of fear of personal punishment by eternal damnation, would be one way of doing just that. That is the sort of moral teaching that results in sociopaths, people concerned only for their own well-being or their own souls rather than people with a capacity for empathy for other human beings. Hell keeps people in line just like our legal system does but it doesn’t make them more moral. It is identifying with others, seeing that others are also ourselves, that constitutes moral progress. The question of “why follow the moral law?” is dissolved at the point when the saint no longer distinguishes his own self-interest from the needs of others.

 

[Thales]

Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” We should convince them that we need to be concerned about hurting others because it has consquences for others. It is the power of human imagination to put ourselves in another’s shoes that will help us progess morally. Psychologists tell us that teaching children only about the threat of personal consequences for their behavior toward others results in sociopaths. Teaching our children to do what a Church commands out of fear of personal punishment by eternal damnation, would be one way of doing just that. That is the sort of moral teaching that results in sociopaths, people concerned only for their own well-being or their own souls rather than people with a capacity for empathy for other human beings. Hell keeps people in line just like our legal system does but it doesn’t make them more moral. It is identifying with others, seeing that others are also ourselves, that constitutes moral progress. The question of “why follow the moral law?” is dissolved at the point when the saint no longer distinguishes his own self-interest from the needs of others.

I don’t think you have the right idea about the Christian mode of teaching morality. This view that the Church disseminates morality through fear of damnation is wrong. Those who call themselves Christians or Catholics and teach this way are not in accord with the Church or Christ. I always took your view of Christian moral teaching as an insult, something the ill informed used as an attack based on a few bad examples or what the media and movies too often show. I follow the moral code of the Church because it is a positive thing, for some of the same reasons you say, because I care more about others than I do myself. This is what Jesus taught. He never said do this or that because if you don’t you will be damned, but do these things and you will reduce suffering and misery. Increase misery, pain, and the suffering of others and you are asking for damnation. Instead, do these things. Love your neighbor, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. out of love and compassion for fellow man, no matter what man, Jew, gentile, Christian, atheist. If you’re not motivated to care for a person based on the virtue of there personhood, there being human, or movement of your emotions, Christianity tells us to do it anyway because God has commanded you to. Christian obediance is not driven by fear but out of love. The least I can do is be odediant to God for the endless outpouring of love He has for me. God does indeed want what is best for us that’s why He begs for our obedience.

 

[Leela]

I don’t think you have the right idea about the Christian mode of teaching morality. This view that the Church disseminates morality through fear of damnation is wrong. Those who call themselves Christians or Catholics and teach this way are not in accord with the Church or Christ. I always took your view of Christian moral teaching as an insult, something the ill informed used as an attack based on a few bad examples or what the media and movies too often show. I follow the moral code of the Church because it is a positive thing, for some of the same reasons you say, because I care more about others than I do myself. This is what Jesus taught. He never said do this or that because if you don’t you will be damned, but do these things and you will reduce suffering and misery. Increase misery, pain, and the suffering of others and you are asking for damnation. Instead, do these things. Love your neighbor, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. out of love and compassion for fellow man, no matter what man, Jew, gentile, Christian, atheist. If you’re not motivated to care for a person based on the virtue of there personhood, there being human, or movement of your emotions, Christianity tells us to do it anyway because God has commanded you to. Christian obediance is not driven by fear but out of love. The least I can do is be odediant to God for the endless outpouring of love He has for me. God does indeed want what is best for us that’s why He begs for our obedience.

I’m sure that Christians ask their children “how would you feel if someone did that to you?” just as everyone else does. That’s why I wonder at Christians who look at atheists as if they could not be moral if they don’t believe in an afterlife. I imagine there are very few Christians who actually try to teach their children how to behave by threatening eternal damnation. I didn’t mean to imply that what Catholicism endorses is teaching kids to do right out of fear of punishment. My point was addressing the OP which suggests that there would be no reason to be good if there were no heaven or hell. My argument is that fear of hell or pursuit of heaven is not real morality, that’s why even though Christians believe in such things, they don’t use those beliefs to teach their children about morality.

 

[Thales]

I’m sure that Christians ask their children “how would you feel if someone did that to you?” just as everyone else does. That’s why I wonder at Christians who look at atheists as if they could not be moral if they don’t believe in an afterlife. I imagine there are very few Christians who actually try to teach their children how to behave by threatening eternal damnation. I didn’t mean to imply that what Catholicism endorses is teaching kids to do right out of fear of punishment. My point was addressing the OP which suggests that there would be no reason to be good if there were no heaven or hell. My argument is that fear of hell or pursuit of heaven is not real morality, that’s why even though Christians believe in such things, they don’t use those beliefs to teach their children about morality.

I agree with everything you say here.

 

[Leela]

I agree with everything you say here.

Hi Thales,

It’s nice to be able to agree on something.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, **we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” ***

Glad to hear that the psychologists have finally caught up with Jesus.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31)

 

[Leela]

Leela

*Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, **we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” ***

Glad to hear that the psychologists have finally caught up with Jesus.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31)

This is like saying that Jesus finally caught up to Confuscianism or Socrates (or more directly, Judaism “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18). My point is that whether or not someone believes in an afterlife is irrelevent to morality, and asking this question (“how would you feel?”) rather than threatening eternal damnation is what psychologists say we need to do if we don’t want our children to be psychopaths.

Pretty much every society has articulated some version of the ethics of reciprocity. It is not the possession or product of Christianity alone. I don’t know when parents first started asking this question of their children, but it is clear that the first parents to do this were not Christians. The very important ethical practice that seems to be original to Jesus in his teaching is forgiveness of others rather than the Golden Rule. From what I can tell, this is the teaching that is uniquely Christian, and I think it is an extremely valuable teaching.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thales

My argument is that fear of hell or pursuit of heaven is not real morality, that’s why even though Christians believe in such things, they don’t use those beliefs to teach their children about morality.

I think I understand your sentiment, but it isn’t the sentiment that ultimately matters. It’s what Jesus says that ultimately matters.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

We don’t dare teach our children that there are no disastrous consequences to denying their faith.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*This is like saying that Jesus finally caught up to Confuscianism or Socrates (or more directly, Judaism “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18). *

Leviticus is certainly older than Socrates or Confucius, and, as Jesus said, it is the law that he came to fulfill. It wasn’t for him a matter of catching up to Leviticus so much as a matter of emphasizing what had already been inspired by the Holy Spirit; and not only repeating it, but proving it by his life and death.

*The very important ethical practice that seems to be original to Jesus in his teaching is forgiveness of others rather than the Golden Rule. *

You are treating Jesus as if he never existed before he was born into this world. Jesus is the Son from all eternity. The Golden Rule springs from the Trinity, of which the Son is a part, and you cannot lock Jesus into a merely human being as you can lock Socrates and Confucius. Though since you are an atheist, I can see why you want to.

 

[Thales]

Thales

My argument is that fear of hell or pursuit of heaven is not real morality, that’s why even though Christians believe in such things, they don’t use those beliefs to teach their children about morality.

I think I understand your sentiment, but it isn’t the sentiment that ultimately matters. It’s what Jesus says that ultimately matters.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

We don’t dare teach our children that there are no disastrous consequences to denying their faith.

Of course we teach our children there are consequences to denying our faith, just as you teach them about the consequences to any action. What are the effects of denting faith? There is a reason Jesus presses us not to lose faith entirely, it’s not for the sake of faith. When we deny our belief in Christ we dismiss what He has taught us, who He was, and His transcendent authority. This increases evil and unnecessary pain and suffering. The man consumed with himself, makes himself the authority, it becomes his will over anyone else’s. When you choose your will, you reject God’s. This is Hell, because although in some cases in some people they are in concordance, for the most part man is selfish and prone to evil.

Most of Christianity is reasonable and logical. Even faith has a logical end.

The reason gets us back to the original question. Instead of asking if you don’t believe in an afterlife will you still be moral. It should be, if you don’t believe in the *transcendent *moral law what will morality look like? Belief in an afterlife implies a certain transcendence (that which is outside and above man) because we cannot know for certain, or at least prove the existence of God, (please, I know all the arguments that come along with proving the existence of God, so let’s not get into that. I believe in God, I have faith in Him, if it could be proven, what does faith mean?) we have to have faith in his commandments.

I don’t deny either that other cultures outside of Christianity come up with a moral law. Moral law derived from a non-transcendent source is what you don’t see.

Don’t outright dismiss what someone says just because they are an atheist. Often times they have correct facts and make good arguments. It’s more times the case their interpretations and conclusions are what we disagree with.