At the behest of our faithful and civil commenter Cineaste, I listened to a highly enjoyable Radiolabs show on morality, and wanted to comment on it. Cineaste puts this show forth as his position on morality, and I believe, in some sense, is also using it to (a) propose that morality is biologically determined, and therefore, to (b) deny that there are some absolutes in morality, and (c) perhaps to contradict the "Christian" view of morality.
Cin, please note that I listened to and commented on this between 1:30 and 2:30 AM, so give me some slack on me not trying to answer you. I have two small children and a job ;). But I was up, so I figured I’d answer you, since you work hard at commenting (even if I do oft accuse you of non-sequiturs and lack of logical discrimination).
1. The "kill one man to save five, by action or inaction" quandary and what the brain is doing
What is interesting about this show is the idea that you struggle with moral decisions, and that certain parts of your brain are involved in this struggle. The show argues that morality is biologically inherited from our "primate ancestors," in fact, that modern morality is really just that which natural selection preserved for us – that morality is only kept if it gave our ancestors an increased ability to survive.
I’m not sure how this plays into how you approach the Christian view of morality, but I found little that actually seriously challenged the Christian view – it was interesting, but I don’t think it really presents a cogent view of morality, and much less one that contradicts the Xian view.
1. Most of our characteristics have both nature and nurture components, so I am not averse to thinking that our sense of morality is affected by biology.
I suppose some would instantly say "no, morality is determined by God through revelation, not through biology." I think that, regardless of the input, the revealed truths are the correct ones, esp. since nature, and human nature, are corrupted by sin, even if they bear the vestiges of the image of the Creator.
2. M orality is "pre-programmed" in.
Scriptures do teach that a sense of morality is built in. However, it also argues that our sense of right and wrong is corrupted by sin, so that even though we are aware of what is right and wrong, we often deceive ourselves regarding morality so that we can excuse ourselves. In fact, the bible clearly teaches that our consciences can become either hardened (failing to convict us of true moral impropriety) or weak/oversensitive (convicting us of things that are not really wrong). Here are some scriptures on that subject:
Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)Psalm 19:1-3
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
3. Assuming evolution to prove it is, of course, circular
First of all, this show assumes evolution, and then makes an argument that supports it. It’s circular. While morality may improve our survival, not all that helps animals survive, including infanticide, murder of the weak or infirm, are "moral."
It also uses the old "primitive v. modern" parts of the brain to emphasize the sense of morality ‘inherited from primates."
4. There is a difference between looking at the animal world to determine morality and looking to the "laws of nature and Nature’s God."
The difference is, we appeal not just to the examples of animals, but rather, we appeal to the self-evident principles of human morality that should be beyond dispute, such as the equality of humans, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The show does mention that chimps have no sense of guilt or shame, and that makes us different. Good for them.
5. Morality is really just animal empathy in action.
While animals may engage in empathy, this doesn’t mean that morality is biological (and therefore we should look to nature to get morality, or that morality is subjective). It merely means that they are capable of empathy. Very nice.
6. The Development of Morality in Childhood
Of course, anyone who has studied this must have read Kohlberg. And while studying the development of morality is useful and interesting, what does it say about the formation of morality, or more importantly, what is mature morality?
It certainly does not play into the idea that morality is entirely subjective. It only shows that we grow in our ability to develop a more complex view of morality. Simple rules may work in general, but reality is more complex, and a more complex view is needed if you want to be mature and effective.
7. CONCLUSIONS
So, Cineaste, I found it hard to distill a view of morality from this interesting report. You wrote that it represents your view of morality. Just what is that view? Is it somehow in opposition to the "Christian" view?
Thanks, for doing that Seeker. I have asked for topic before but this last time, I provided the link to answer one of the questions you had for me and my beliefs about morality. I'll comment more tomorrow but first, your 3 points.
(a) propose that morality is biologically determined
It's partly biological but also cognitively determined.
(b) deny that there are some absolutes in morality
There are a few moral absolutes that are right or wrong in all circumstances common to all cultures across all history. There are also many relative morals the differ along cultural lines like chastity.
(c) perhaps to contradict the "Christian" view of morality.
Perhaps, but I want to establish where, if anywhere, the RadioLabs study conflicts with Christianity.
I'll be back :)
I think you should look for a clearer declaration of what is being said here, maybe in another article.
So, Cineaste, I found it hard to distill a view of morality from this interesting report. You wrote that it represents your view of morality. Just what is that view?
Lawanda asked me…
And yet, you base your “philosophical” – moral, I guess- views on it. Or do you? I am still trying to figure out where you get your “morals” from (and what they are.). You have said it is not science.
My answer to her was…
No, it’s not science. Philosophers have tried to answer this question for millennia and they still can’t agree. I’ll give you my personal answer, as one human being to another. I believe that all humans have empathy (1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.) I believe human empathy is the source of our morality. I believe empathy is in our DNA. So, morality is our human capacity for reason working upon this innate empathy we have. This is how we know what is right from what is wrong. This is my own idea though, I don’t know if others feel like this. There are people who have condemned me here for holding this belief.
I found the Radio Labs interview and I think it supports my answer to her.
Is it somehow in opposition to the “Christian” view?
Morality is “preprogrammed” in. Scriptures do teach that a sense of morality is built in.
Forgive me Seeker, I’m not interested in Biblical scripture regarding morality (See the Sam Harris quote above.) Also, if you where conversing with a Muslim and he started quoting passages from his holy book, the Quran, like…
“A good word is like a good tree whose root is firmly fixed and whose top is in the sky.”
It wouldn’t mean much to you would it? It’s not a logical argument. So, when you start doing the same thing to me with…
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”
It’s the same deal. You as a Christian quoting the Bible to me has the same effect as a Muslim quoting the Quran to you. Nothing, and for the same reason. Neither argument has any logical basis. Logic is universal to all mankind. Particular religions like Christianity and Islam are clearly not.
We appeal to the self-evident principles of human morality that should be beyond dispute, such as the equality of humans, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This is Thomas Jefferson. Until the philosophies associated with The Age of Reason, these were not “self-evident.” This is actually clear evidence of a shifting moral zeitgeist.
Morality is really just animal empathy in action.
If one refers to the segment where chimps show empathy by sharing, I would say it’s more than just empathy. Simple empathy can be shown when they grieve for another group member who has died. In the Radio labs example, they actually have a moral system of sharing food where the dominant males would parcel out the food in specific amounts to each member of the group.
Assuming evolution to prove it is, of course, circular
This is not surprising because you are a creationist. I’ll skip this because the program does assume people are not biblical fundamentalists about origins. Evolution is not an issue for non-creationists. Seeker believes in creationism: end of conversation. We can’t continue without going nowhere on this point.
I would just like to say that the Radio Labs show is a very interesting look at how morality works and it’s worth checking out regardless of whether you are a creationist or not.
I have comments to make on this, but if you will pardon me, I really must get to sleep tonight.
I will hopefully have more time on thursday to post. Thx for your patience. :)
Altruistic behaviour is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. Self sacrifice is present in bees as well as many other insects, I seriously doubt they have read the bible. Altruism is also well documented in chimpanzee groups ,as well as violence towards (out-group)individuals. Group dynamics involving co-operation and symbiosis is under intense study in the scientific community .
The defining characteristic of evolutionary altruism seems to be the boundaries of the in-group/out-group relationship. Being a productive member of a community is a benefit to passing on those genes that favour co-operative behaviours. In the absence of technology/communication and with limited resources it is more efficient to have limits on the size of any one group (in chipanzees for example).
Humans, at one point , did live in small social groups. The development of language and culture (memetic evolution) made it possible to have larger social groups with cultural as well as religious boundaries that define the (in-group).
In the modern world there are many religious /ethnic boundaries that are a never ending source of violence and bigotry. I would have to agree with Sam Harris on the point that (dogmatic thinking) is the problem. Some political docrines have been just as destructive to mankind .
As a secular science based individual, I see the group as being all mankind, as well as it`s relationship with all other life on earth.
Ultimately , morality is defined by naturalistic as well as environmental factors . It all comes down to what you deem to be important! A Christian is going to value eternal life and the absolute obedience to Yahweh, the scriptures regarding that schema are the measure of morality ,the very definition of it .
However , being a secular individual, I see morality as a struggle against suffering and the adherence to honesty. It all comes down to what kind of world I wish to live in. A Mad Max rape and slaughterfest (no thanx), or a peaceful ,kind, reason based future (yes please!)
I haven't got past harris' third myth yet in discussion. I think I will find myself agreeing with him about 30%.
In the modern world there are many religious /ethnic boundaries that are a never ending source of violence and bigotry. I would have to agree with Sam Harris on the point that (dogmatic thinking) is the problem.
I think the problem (I am assuming you mean the problem to be that of destructiveness to mankind) is people who do not think at all, except of their own pleasure. And while I agree that sometimes religious or perhaps ethnic boundaries do seem to be a source of bigotry or violence, I do not think they are the main source, or that in the simplicity of their origins are even a true source of either.
Ultimately , morality is defined by naturalistic as well as environmental factors
I totally agree with that statement.
Cineaste: As far as the radiolab program goes, I do very much agree that humans are seperated from animals by their guilt, which I think is along the same lines by what you refer to as empathy. I also think most immorality stems from a decided lack of guilt.
I really enjoyed the piece about the girl who went back to apologise to her teacher about how she behaved during the game, and how that marked her life. I know I have things like that in my life, and they make me who I am, and influence the decisions I make, every day!
I did not see how those ambiguous "moral problems" really could be of any value. When I think of the one about the railroad, I know that if it were me, I would feel desperately terrible about either/any choice. And when I think of the one about the baby, I cannot understand how a full half of the people questioned would smother their baby. I do not see it as a question of logic. If you used logic, then you could surmise that even if the baby coughed, you might still survive. The chance would be the same of them hearing the baby cough as not. I believe this to be ambiguous because either situation would be pretty much out of your control.
Oh I am not explaining myself very well, but I did not think the situations they presented fit with their "logical" findings. Plus I was bawling, just as I always do when I watch that episode of MASH.
I would agree with this to an extent however: I would just like to say that the Radio Labs show is a very interesting look at how morality works
And would agree fully with this: and it's worth checking out regardless of whether you are a creationist or not.
Bump. Anyone? Seeker, Aaron, Lawanda do you have any thoughts on the Harvard lecture? Louis, Sam?
She is incapable of actually being sorry, or making it up to you, or your girlfriend. I would say it was more fear of being caught than guilt though, wouldnt you? ;)
I haven't got to click the link yet!
She is incapable of actually being sorry, or making it up to you, or your girlfriend. I would say it was more fear of being caught than guilt though, wouldn't you? ;)
Good point :) Yes, that's possible too.
Ok, I watched it. :)
I had a class like that in college. No Harvard, by any means, community college. But it was funny, because my German prof was also the philosophy and religion prof… And we would end up doing more philosophy debate than learning German! :)
I thoroughly enjoyed that class. Several of us would stand outside afterward to continue the discussions.
Actually sometimes our bible class at church gets that way too. Apparently even in a small group such as ours there are differences of philosophical opinion :)
This world would be a boring place if everyone thought just as I do, I will say that.
In the modern world there are many religious /ethnic boundaries that are a never ending source of violence and bigotry. I would have to agree with Sam Harris on the point that (dogmatic thinking) is the problem.
(I think the problem (I am assuming you mean the problem to be that of destructiveness to mankind) is people who do not think at all, except of their own pleasure. And while I agree that sometimes religious or perhaps ethnic boundaries do seem to be a source of bigotry or violence, I do not think they are the main source, or that in the simplicity of their origins are even a true source of either)-Lawanda
No ,this is exactly what I disagree with. The problem is dogmatic thinking . Everyone within any given religious context is acting within that framework to please themselves. Christians have no ethical qualms about subjugating the rights of secular peoples or other religious peoples if they have the power to do so. This is due to a belief that they hold the true moral high ground as granted by God. The problem is , that is what all monotheistic religions have in common. Being articles of FAITH these premises are not on the table for discussion. As Sam Harris puts it "Faith is a conversation stopper" ,and where conversation fails, violence is the only alternative available .
Christians have no ethical qualms about subjugating the rights of secular peoples or other religious peoples if they have the power to do so.
Fist, this is not true of all Christians – while Christian do want moral society, they do not, unlike Muslims, believe that it must be entirely enforced or accomplished via legislation.
Of course, there have been those in history like the Prohibitionists, and those who promoted sodomy laws, but a significant majority today are only interested in protecting children from abortion and the family unit from the perils of adultery, divorce, and the promotion of perverse sexualities. Not making such illegal, but at least not extending legislative approval to them.
Second, dogmatism is not the sole perview of religion – all ideologies are vulnerable to dogmatism because they are supported by humans. Secularists, atheists, Darwinists, Communists, or any other ideologue can be dogmatic and seek to enforce their ideas via legislation. And they do.
Third, Christianity has no significant modern history of wanting to legally suppress or persecute other religions. American Buddhism, for instance, has flourished in a largely evangelical USA without a peep about making it illegal.
And I don't think that modern moral causes taken up by Christians can be considered religious, because while Christians may be motivated by faith, the causes and arguments behind them are ethical, not religious.
Opponents may find that disingenous or purposely deceptive, but largely, it is not. When I and other xians argue against abortion, our primary argument is not "the bible says so," but rather, "the child has an unalienable right to life."
In response to SEEKER." while Christian do want moral society, they do not, unlike Muslims, believe that it must be entirely enforced or accomplished via legislation. "- When you say moral society ,I wonder what you mean by that? Moral values are what one understands to be right and wrong. The Christian view of morality is based on picking and choosing from the bible (using a secular moral zeitgeist approach) with an intent on strengthening its own survival, that of Christianity itself. If you relied entirely on the bible for moral guidance ,we would see the ripping open of pregnant women of our enemies as being entirely good! This is old testament of course ,but Jesus came to fulfill the old testament law ,every jot and tittle. Jesus, being one of the three persons of the trinity of God, I t would be rather blasphemous to argue otherwise.
"Second, dogmatism is not the sole perview of religion – all ideologies are vulnerable to dogmatism because they are supported by humans. Secularists, atheists, Darwinists, Communists, or any other ideologue can be dogmatic and seek to enforce their ideas via legislation. And they do".-SEEKER-
Well there are a few glaring falsehoods here . First of all . Atheists do not enforce any dogmas via legislation . Atheists generally enforce the separation of state and church (The First Ammendment ) which is constantly under attack by the religious right wing groups. Darwinists are not a group of people incapable of integrating and changing their understanding of the universe. The Origin of Species is not a holy book and Charles Darwin is not a prophet. Darwin was an honest scientist that proposed his explanation of evolution in such a way as to challenge science to refute it ! No such refutation has been yet found in 150 years, so it stands as one of the most (supported by evidence ) discoveries in science. Dogmatism and science are incompatible . Any adherence to a false claim creates problems in repeatability of experiment and application, as in biology and medicine. Did you get your flu shot?
"Third, Christianity has no significant modern history of wanting to legally suppress or persecute other religions. American Buddhism, for instance, has flourished in a largely evangelical USA without a peep about making it illegal."-SEEKER
Oh really ..well first of all,a quote from George Bush Sr-"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." This statement is in direct violation of the first amendment. One might as well say, I don`t know if blacks should be considered as citizens,nor should they be considered as patriots. This nation was founded by the white man. -The bigotry is the same.
And I don't think that modern moral causes taken up by Christians can be considered religious, because while Christians may be motivated by faith, the causes and arguments behind them are ethical, not religious.-SEEKER
If the causes and arguments are ethical,not religious, then where did you get them from! Personally ,I am against abortion . I also understand the difference between a blastula (small bunch of undifferentiated cells) and an infant in utero. I am personally concerned with how both of these are treated ,but for entirely non-christian reasons.
The belief that God is responsible for the gift of a soul at conception is not one of these. And that is the prime source of the Christian opposition to such things as stem cell research and abortion, not out of any respect for life ,but the maintanance of coherent doctrine regarding the (god given soul). If the self is not the soul (god given)and the result of transient neural processes ,then what need of salvation? Or God for that matter?
I might add ..the controversy regarding stem cell research seems to have been diffused. It has now been found to be possible to harvest stem cells from amniotic fluid ,with no forseeable ethical problems , and with incalulable benefit to those suffering from spinal cord injury as well as a great number of neurological disorders.
Here is another article about the new science of morality.
Morality play – A Harvard researcher believes that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, but others say morality is mostly learned – By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | February 5, 2007
Oh, Crap! Can someone please fix the link? It should be… http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/a…