![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
"When she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad, she was very, very popular."
Also, what the blue blazes is with the concept that Atheism has no moral centre or, at least, leads to moral relativism (not convinced that that’s necessarily a bad thing, either and is, in fact, surely an inarguable state of affairs on a global cultural scope, because who is to say whose moral absolutes are correct)?
For a start, how is being atheist supposed to rob you of, for the want of a better expression, a moral compass? Is it what you’re taught as part of your religion, that gives you a moral compass? Because I would say I have been taught my morals in the same way as many other Christians in this country. Does the simple fact of my non-belief in God negate what I have learnt? Because this implies to me that what matters is not what one knows to be right or wrong, but that God will see that you do not follow the rules. It’s not a case of not doing something because you know it’s wrong, but not stealing a Mars bar because your mother will find out and there’ll be hell to pay. If God has to be in the equation for a moral foundation to be worth anything, then it implies that humans are not capable of making their own moral decisions, *even when* they are given the rulebook.
Of course, that’s a bit fallacious, because if I don’t believe in God, I can’t really claim to believe in the ‘rulebook’ that is Christian teaching (even though I (a) do believe in the existence of Jesus, just not that he was God’s son etc etc etc and (b) do actually think that much of Christian morality is generally a Good Thing (how can compassion, understanding and love be bad, for a start), though of course that could be explained as simple cultural submergence). And in some ways I don’t. I don’t believe God handed Moses the Ten Commandments; I don’t, as I said, believe that Jesus was the son of God, come to teach us the error of our ways. But I do think that we are capable of creating our own morality, and while I think that the nature of the world means that one has to accept a degree of moral relativism, I do believe in the concept of a universal morality.
It’s actually fairly basic, but I think that we have certain moral rules that are self-evident and based, admittedly, on rather selfish impulses, viz, do as you would be done by, basically. No-one wants to be murdered, so murder is bad. No-one wants someone to beat them with a stick, so beating people with sticks is bad (should add without consent, no matter what R v Brown said!!!). I think this sort of ‘universal morality’ is strictly limited (I would say, for example, that no-one likes having their belongings pinched, so pinching people’s belongings is bad, except I read a book recently about Cook’s travels in Tahiti, and how he had real problems because he couldn’t get his head round the Tahitians not having the concept of private property – a concept that is, and pretty much always has been – fundamental to English culture). In some ways, I would liken it to Hart’s concept of having a basic moral centre to law. Hart was a positivist (arguing that laws are laws when they flow from an acceptable precedent ie, a law in this country is a valid law when it has been passed by the Commons, the Lords, and given royal assent, as opposed to the natural law contingent, who argue that a law is a law when it is moral and necessary etc etc, which I could never understand because that is patently not how legal systems work, in developed countries at least), and though in positivism the substance of the law is not actually relevant, Hart posited that you did at least need to have a moral centre to the legal system or else it would be fundamentally unstable. (At least, I *think* that’s what he said – this was a while ago, after all, and I was slightly distracted at the time by my own mentalheadedness.) Things change between cultures, but we are all still humans, and I think there are probably some fundamental similarities in different cultures’ moral systems, similarities that may well exist in the face of completely disparate religious beliefs. Which to me would imply that there is a level of universal morality that has nothing to do with believing in a one true god.
For a start, how is being atheist supposed to rob you of, for the want of a better expression, a moral compass? Is it what you’re taught as part of your religion, that gives you a moral compass? Because I would say I have been taught my morals in the same way as many other Christians in this country. Does the simple fact of my non-belief in God negate what I have learnt? Because this implies to me that what matters is not what one knows to be right or wrong, but that God will see that you do not follow the rules. It’s not a case of not doing something because you know it’s wrong, but not stealing a Mars bar because your mother will find out and there’ll be hell to pay. If God has to be in the equation for a moral foundation to be worth anything, then it implies that humans are not capable of making their own moral decisions, *even when* they are given the rulebook.
Of course, that’s a bit fallacious, because if I don’t believe in God, I can’t really claim to believe in the ‘rulebook’ that is Christian teaching (even though I (a) do believe in the existence of Jesus, just not that he was God’s son etc etc etc and (b) do actually think that much of Christian morality is generally a Good Thing (how can compassion, understanding and love be bad, for a start), though of course that could be explained as simple cultural submergence). And in some ways I don’t. I don’t believe God handed Moses the Ten Commandments; I don’t, as I said, believe that Jesus was the son of God, come to teach us the error of our ways. But I do think that we are capable of creating our own morality, and while I think that the nature of the world means that one has to accept a degree of moral relativism, I do believe in the concept of a universal morality.
It’s actually fairly basic, but I think that we have certain moral rules that are self-evident and based, admittedly, on rather selfish impulses, viz, do as you would be done by, basically. No-one wants to be murdered, so murder is bad. No-one wants someone to beat them with a stick, so beating people with sticks is bad (should add without consent, no matter what R v Brown said!!!). I think this sort of ‘universal morality’ is strictly limited (I would say, for example, that no-one likes having their belongings pinched, so pinching people’s belongings is bad, except I read a book recently about Cook’s travels in Tahiti, and how he had real problems because he couldn’t get his head round the Tahitians not having the concept of private property – a concept that is, and pretty much always has been – fundamental to English culture). In some ways, I would liken it to Hart’s concept of having a basic moral centre to law. Hart was a positivist (arguing that laws are laws when they flow from an acceptable precedent ie, a law in this country is a valid law when it has been passed by the Commons, the Lords, and given royal assent, as opposed to the natural law contingent, who argue that a law is a law when it is moral and necessary etc etc, which I could never understand because that is patently not how legal systems work, in developed countries at least), and though in positivism the substance of the law is not actually relevant, Hart posited that you did at least need to have a moral centre to the legal system or else it would be fundamentally unstable. (At least, I *think* that’s what he said – this was a while ago, after all, and I was slightly distracted at the time by my own mentalheadedness.) Things change between cultures, but we are all still humans, and I think there are probably some fundamental similarities in different cultures’ moral systems, similarities that may well exist in the face of completely disparate religious beliefs. Which to me would imply that there is a level of universal morality that has nothing to do with believing in a one true god.
no subject
no subject
Bah.
I suppose the question that sticks in my head after reading this is: Where does your universal morality come from?
Maybe that's a question because I, as a religious person, find it hard to think of morality being innate without any outside influence but there it is and I suspect that's where all the "moral relativism" comes in.
To me the fundamental similarities come from the fact that we are all made by God, and on a slightly different point how many of those similarities in the difference societies come from their own religions? I've yet to see what a purely atheist society would look like and so I can't say whether it would have a moral centre or not...
I hope that doesn't sounds stupid or attacking or patronising but I find I literally don't have the language to explain the fundamental wrongness I feel about the idea of a universal morality with no god behind it...
(I should stop talking about religion and politics now I think)
no subject
*g* Not at all.
Don't you think that as humans we have any innate sense of bad and good behaviour? Or that we are capable of formulating our own social rules of right and wrong? I think that we are social animals (evidently), and that it is a requisite of our makeup that we should be driven towards behaviour that lends itself to getting along together. I think this, at base, is where our morality comes from: a need to have rules of behaviour that mean that, at least within our own 'tribes', if you like, we can cohabit without conflict. And yes, this varies from culture to culture, but it is still driven by the need to get along with those close to us (in terms of family relationships and physical proximity). Obviously I'm not saying this means our behaviour means we should be conditioned so we never fight with our families or our neighbours, but it does mean that generally speaking we have the same rulebook. And yes, obviously in almost every culture I can imagine, religion has been a governing force in that culture's version of morality. But all that means is that they share the same belief system - are still following the same rulebook. It doesn't necessarily mean that those social rules were handed down from on high, just that those rules have developed within that society to allow them to co-exist. I think, anyway.
no subject
Incidentally, have you ever read C S Lewis' "Mere Christianity" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0006280544/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/203-0497346-9535915?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183057802&sr=8-2)? It is rather dated now, of course, having been written in the 1950s or even before, but he makes very much this point - that there does seem to be an inbuilt, universal morality, which may differ in details but is broadly the same - as
Lewis, of course, comes to a very different conclusion to you, but you might be interested in how he got there! Even though you won't agree with it.
no subject
Not all athiests are without morals. It is very very silly for people to assume that. Like not all people who pursue a religion (leaping after it and cursing the driver for not waiting a few more moments at the bus stop) are good-nice-moral people.
I also think that the boundaries of morality are set with in social & cultural norms, which even now remain heavily influenced by religion (even when people like to think they are not). Separating out what religion caused & what religion merely adopted is pretty much impossible. I don't think it is necessary to adhere to a religion to accept some of the values & moral standards it is promoting. For example, I don't drink alcohol or smoke, but I'm not likely to be converting to Islam any time, er, ever.
I'm sure there was something else I wished to add to this bibble. No idea what though...
no subject