Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes) Message-ID: <1710@dciem.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 18:27:41 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1710 Posted: Tue Oct 8 18:27:41 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 20:24:49 EDT References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP> <1683@dciem.UUCP> <5934@cbscc.UUCP> <1687@dciem.UUCP> <598 Oct 85 22:27:41 GMT Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 109 Summary: >>Two points here: Law = Morality, and evolution both develops moral codes >>and allows us to question them. > >You forgot the one about the basis for the authority of law. I thought >that was my main point. >>(1) Law = Morality: >> I totally reject any idea that the law should support any religiously >>based morality. It can, however, support moral behaviour whose value has >>been shown by long experience (e.g. don't kill, steal, etc.), as well as >>behaviour that we reason will be beneficial. Reliance on religious bases >>for morality leads to conflicts between religions as to what is moral and >>what is not, except in these core areas that have evolved over periods >>longer than humanity has existed. Much of what Christianity calls "moral" >>is aimed at maintaining authority rather than improving life. One can >>argue that the makers of law have a similar self-serving motivation, and >>therefore one would expect law to parallel Christian morality, but that >>is not a good reason to derive laws from Christian morality. > >But you seem to think that it is a good reason to reject a moral code >based in religious belief. Again, I am not talking about the derivation >of moral codes, I'm talking about the authority we may claim for enforcing >them. By whose experience and whose reason are these values shown to >be beneficial (to whom)? > >>(2) >>>If moral codes are a product of evolution, then so is my ability to reason >>>and to question those moral codes. >> >>I totally agree, but I think it contradicts your statements about moral >>codes having a religious basis. I believe it is absolutely necessary that >>we try to break out of the straitjacket of moral codes that evolved to >>suit small bands of social animals, and develop through reason new codes >>that suit our Global Village. We cannot afford a code that permits people > >I'm a little confused as to the point of these paragraphs. You talk about >what "we" can't allow or afford. But what if "they" decide they can? >Why are we right and they wrong? What if they don't value individual >rights or human lives (except their own)? You might have the strength >to force them to, but in what would you base you authority to do so? >How can we claim that "they" are under that same authory and are bound >to respect what we believe are human rights? What gives the moral beliefs >we hold any transcendence over what people think? >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd I have elided my original, to which you were commenting, but not your comments. There is an important political issue here, that divides us utterly, even though we might wind up supporting the same kinds of behaviour and laws. That issue is the appeal to a *necessary* authority. I do not believe in the necessity of an extra-personal authority to validate either laws or moral codes. You think that humans cannot agree to either unless they have some kind of Big Daddy in the Sky to tell them that they have chosen correctly. Since I wrote the original rather off-hand suggestion about the possibility that religions arose as a response to a need for a "rational" explanation of pre-existing morality, I have thought about it a bit more. It now seems to me more than just a possibility; rather it is a highly likely historical event. After all, humans evolved as group animals with certain behaviour traits that kept the group intact (moral behaviour). At some point, evolution reached as far a allowing communications that questioned, and that pondered mysteries. "Why should we behave well to one another" "Why does the Sun come and keep us warm, and where does the snow come from?" and so on and so forth. There is one big, neat, rational solution to these questions, from a primitive standpoint. Each of these natural events has someone looking after it to see that it happens properly. Well, if those guys are so powerful, they are stronger than us, and we'd better be careful not to offend them. We do pretty well, behaving the way we do, so that must be the way they want us to behave. Yeah, our morals derive from the Gods ... A very natural and logical progression. And it is as rational today as it was then, which is to say completely rational unless you take advantage of Ockham's razor. Since we now know a few more facts of nature, and have invented simple stories that fit most of them together in a consistent way, we find there is no need to depend on the authority of these Gods (or of the One God into whom they all coalesced, according to some people). Not only that, we can see quite naturally why it was rational to believe in the Gods and to depend on their authority. Once a few people understood the powerful logic behind making Gods responsible for our good behaviour, other people could stand up as interpreters of the Gods, and their continuance in power depended on people requiring the authority of the Gods to prevent them from terrible deeds. But all along, it was the basic nature of small groups to behave well among themselves. Early Christians knew well the benefits of grafting their dogma onto pre-existing beliefs and behaviour patterns, and it was probably no different elsewhere in the world. I would consider this suitable for net.religion, were it not for the fact that the issue lies near the foundation of political discussion. I go back to your last paragraph quoted above. I believe no-one has "authority" to make anyone believe anything, or to behave in a particular way. "We" meaning humanity as a whole, must behave in a way that allows our continued survival. I believe that means rationally changing the basis of our morality, in respect at least to out-group behaviour. The authority for this is reason and the strength is that of argument. If someone believes that it would be better for humanity to perish, they may be right from some viewpoint or other, but I hope my viewpoint has the "strength" (moral, physical, or legal) to prevent them from putting their views into practice. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt