Logical Morality?

[Rockon]

In a recent excellent — December 20th — article in The New York Times by Edward Rothstein titled, "Reason and Faith, Eternally Bound," we find one statement that particularly got my attention:

Religious beliefs were fundamental to the abolition of slavery in the 19th century and to the civil rights movement in the 20th.

Yes, true. By why was an appeal to religion needed to make the logic and reason of such movements so acceptable? Don't these causes stand as real and attractive without reference to ancient writings that no longer apply — if they ever did — to the real world in which we live?
Nope. Those causes only stand as real and attractive because we want them to, not because they have to. Randi keeps trying to pretend that there is a universal morality independent of any ultimate authority. It's just not possible to establish morality on reason and logic. Whether Randi likes it or not, secular morality is irrational. It's not a science.

Tim

[Quixote]

secular morality is irrational. It's not a science.

How absurd. Secular morality is completely rational. The value and validity of its tenets are evident from their adoption by the major religions. The core morality of all succesful religions are identical to the tenets of secular morality. We know they didn't come from some supernatural being. They were developed, sometimes completely independently, by people of diverse religious beliefs, many of which contradict those core values.

The idea that one group of humans has the right to enslave another is completely unsupportable without religion. No rational argument can justify slavery. Only a belief that it is somehow the will of God could sustain that institution for so long.

I remember when the Mormons changed their policy about allowing men of African descent to enter the priesthood. One day they couldn't; the next day they could. What had changed overnight? Even if you believed it to be God's will, what caused him to change his mind? Why were they unworthy for 100 years, then suddenly worthy of full membership in the church?

No, secular morality is completely rational. For irrationality, you need religion.

[Torlack]

Originally posted by Quixote


The idea that one group of humans has the right to enslave another is completely unsupportable without religion. No rational argument can justify slavery. Only a belief that it is somehow the will of God could sustain that institution for so long.


One need not feel he has a "right" to enslave. All he needs is the desire and the ability.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Torlack


One need not feel he has a "right" to enslave. All he needs is the desire and the ability.
Yep. Exactly my point. With no authority beyond the current "cultural climate," so to speak, who decides what is moral in the secular world? It may seem immoral to us today to enslave others, but it sure didn't 200 years ago. And there's no reason to assume that some civilization from Alpha Centauri would feel the same about slavery as we do. There are simply no "ultimate" rules about this from a secular point of view.

Quixote: I'm not trying to imply that religion is rational. Nor am I trying to imply that it is consistent in it's interpretation of it's self proclaimed "Universal Moral Code." It's not, as far as I'm concerned. What I object to is the myth of "Universal Morality" that Randi proclaims as self evident and entirely reasonable and logical. Randi implies that you don't need religion to behave nicely. I disagree. In general, it's the religious definition of morality that we find "nice." In other words, Randi has been conditioned to accept the notion that slavery is bad. Or perhaps he came to that conclusion on his own. From a secular point of view, you can agree or disagree with him at your discretion. From a religious point of view, you're forced to accept it (regardless of your conditioning or personal analysis) because an ultimate authority enforces it. Er, assuming that your religion actually forbids slavery.

From my point of view, it's rather ironic that a so called bright would adhere so ferverently to an irrational myth. And doubly so, considering that Randi has wondered allowed so many times how a person can be capable of being skeptical about the paranormal and yet be blind to their own irrational faith in the existence of an "ultimate authority."

Tim

[Quixote]

In general, it's the religious definition of morality that we find "nice."

I see it the other way around. Most successful religions have adopted as moral codes that set of behaviors that most people consider nice, even when their religious beliefs support a different moral code.

Consider. Many Christian sects believe that a "saved" individual will go to Heaven when he dies. Heaven is better than Earth. Therefore, "saved" individuals are better off dead than alive. A moral code consistent with that religious belief would favor murder of and suicide by "saved" individuals. Yet even those Christian sects have adopted the common (maybe universal) prohibitions against murder and suicide.

It could be argued that they do so due to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". But, there is no prohibition against suicide in the Bible. (At least not that I'm aware of.) In addition, they have no qualms about making graven images and most don't keep the sabbath holy.

[Kopji]

Does Rothstein mean to imply that the idea of treating others like we wish to be treated ourselves can only be understood in an irrational religious context?

Additionally, there is quite a lot of human trafficking going on today, and by religious believers too. Why has not their morality served as a brake to the behavior?

His reasoning seems not only false, but self serving revisionism.


"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
Link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm)

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Quixote


I see it the other way around. Most successful religions have adopted as moral codes that set of behaviors that most people consider nice, even when their religious beliefs support a different moral code.

Consider. Many Christian sects believe that a "saved" individual will go to Heaven when he dies. Heaven is better than Earth. Therefore, "saved" individuals are better off dead than alive. A moral code consistent with that religious belief would favor murder of and suicide by "saved" individuals. Yet even those Christian sects have adopted the common (maybe universal) prohibitions against murder and suicide.

It could be argued that they do so due to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". But, there is no prohibition against suicide in the Bible. (At least not that I'm aware of.) In addition, they have no qualms about making graven images and most don't keep the sabbath holy.
Ok. I would disagree with your analysis on the Christian perspective on suicide, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that it's hard to tell how much of religious law is truly inspired by the mind of God.

In any event, I think you're missing my point, assuming I have one. I'm not trying to pretend that religious morality is superior or more consistent than secular morality. I'm merely pointing out that Randi seems to think that morality can be established without the need for a higher authority. That there is a universal morality that can be "reasoned out" so to speak. I think that's a myth. I wouldn't dispute that you can establish morality without religion, but there's no guarantee that the morality will be what Randi (or anyone else on this planet) might consider just and proper. In a religious context, morality is defined by God. There *is* a universal morality because God defines it, even if the religious organization misinterprets it, misunderstands it or chooses to ignore it.

I'm not trying to defend religious morality, I'm attacking what I consider to be a myth.

Tim

[Beanbag]

I think what drives most morality and "decent" behavior is a sense of empathy. There are a lot of acts that I might choose to do because it would be fun for me, as the actor, to perform, but would cause a considerable amount of discomfort or misery for other persons who are acted upon. I choose not to do such acts because I either know first-hand what it's like to be on the receiving end, or because I've taken the time to look ahead and see what the consequences of my actions on other people might be.

-- long rant against religion deleted before submitting reply. Felt good typing it in, but in hindsight, didn't contribute to the topic. --

I may not be a nice person, but I try to be a considerate person. I've met too many nice people who have no consideration for others at all.

Regards;
Beanbag

[BobM]

I think what drives most morality and "decent" behavior is a sense of empathy.

What "drives" it isn't the point here, I think. What Rockon is trying to say is that without a "higher power" or ultimate source for morality, then there can be no "universal" morality. You have moral relavitism. He's not saying this is good or bad. Just that it is.

There's no algorithm for right and wrong. The golden rule isn't enough to form a complete morality.

Is abortion moral?
Is the death penalty moral?
Is suicide moral?
Is assisted-suicide moral?

These are all moral questions that our current society is split on.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Rockon

Yep. Exactly my point. With no authority beyond the current "cultural climate," so to speak, who decides what is moral in the secular world? It may seem immoral to us today to enslave others, but it sure didn't 200 years ago.And, of course, religion makes absolutely no difference. It seemed OK with God to enslave people then, it doesn't now. Religion adds nothing to morality. In fact, "religious" morality is indistinguishable from man-made morality.

Almost as if there were, in fact, no higher power dictating morality. There certainly isn't any evidence that there is.

[BobM]

And, of course, religion makes absolutely no difference. It seemed OK with God to enslave people then, it doesn't now. Religion adds nothing to morality. In fact, "religious" morality is indistinguishable from man-made morality.

Almost as if there were, in fact, no higher power dictating morality. There certainly isn't any evidence that there is.

I think you have the wrong focus here. As I read it, you and Rockon agree. His point is that the statement "Slavery is immoral" is not "true" because "morality" is not absolute. Ever.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by BobM


I think you have the wrong focus here. As I read it, you and Rockon agree. His point is that the statement "Slavery is immoral" is not "true" because "morality" is not absolute. Ever. On second consideration, I think you're right. I misunderstood.

[jimlintott]

Exactly my point. With no authority beyond the current "cultural climate," so to speak, who decides what is moral in the secular world?

Humans, the same as the religous world. If morality doesn't exist without religion then religion must predate morality. However, humans, just like many other animals, are social and cooperative. When the hunter gatherer came home with a dead animal or a bundle of edible roots, would he sit down and keep them for himself? No, of course not, he would share. That is the moral thing to do because it ensures a future for the gene pool. Crocodiles will also eat cooperatively, as well as care for their young. Where did they get their morality from?

Morality existed before religion. Religions came about when someone felt that those around them didn't suit their definition of morality. To get others to conform a prize was offered to those who could behave in the most moral fashion. As a secularist I find this reward based morality to not be morality at all.

[Soapy Sam]

Morality:- Individual survival behaviour in a herd situation.

(From Soapy Sam's Pragmatic Encyclopaedia Vol 23).

Moral:- "Conforming to local and mutable standard of right.Having the quality of general expediency".

(Ambrose Bierce- "The Devil's Dictionary")

[Dr. Popalot]

Religious beliefs were fundamental to the abolition of slavery in the 19th century and to the civil rights movement in the 20th.

One interesting thing I think everyone has missed is that religious beliefs were equally fundamental in the argument for slavery. Since the "Good Book" didn't prohibit it, Jesus never said anything bad about it and there were even passages that discussed the responsibilities of a good slave owner, the institution of slavery was not against, but in agreement with the moral foundation of the West.

How could both extremes be correct/moral?