Religion and Morals

[Chris Smith]

I am somewhat. I kind of have a mixture of (in this case) Harris' and Craig's position. This mainly stems from not equating "the Good" with God, but something that God chooses.

I've felt for a long time that a utilitarian ethic would seem to make the most sense within a Mormon cosmology. God is a particularly bright intelligence who finds himself amongst other, lesser intelligences and designs a "plan of happiness" to elevate them to his level. In doing so, he is bound by the natural contingencies of the universe. In other words, he seems to be trying to make the best of the state of affairs in which he has found himself by following a strategy of happiness-maximization for the largest possible number of people.

From this perspective, the plan of salvation is essentially a social contract ratified by a majority of spirits in the pre-existence. It is designed to assure universal bliss and peaceful coexistence. But not everyone is capable of living up to this ideal standard, so all the spirits are subjected to a "probationary" test by which it is determined who is capable of living up to the contractual moral code and who is not. Those who prove incapable are imprisoned in a lower kingdom where they can't disturb the bliss of the more intelligent and moral entities in the higher kingdoms. Those in the lower kingdoms are pacified with the assurance that their bliss is still far beyond anything they might have imagined, however imperfect it may be.

When you put it "the plan" in these terms it sounds a lot less inspiring, but it also makes a lot more sense.

[Chris Smith]

You sound like a

.

Omg that was awesome.

[WalkerW]

I've felt for a long time that a utilitarian ethic would seem to make the most sense within a Mormon cosmology. God is a particularly bright intelligence who finds himself amongst other, lesser intelligences and designs a "plan of happiness" to elevate them to his level. In doing so, he is bound by the natural contingencies of the universe. In other words, he seems to be trying to make the best of the state of affairs in which he has found himself by following a strategy of happiness-maximization for the largest possible number of people.

From this perspective, the plan of salvation is essentially a social contract ratified by a majority of spirits in the pre-existence. It is designed to assure universal bliss and peaceful coexistence. But not everyone is capable of living up to this ideal standard, so all the spirits are subjected to a "probationary" test by which it is determined who is capable of living up to the contractual moral code and who is not. Those who prove incapable are imprisoned in a lower kingdom where they can't disturb the bliss of the more intelligent and moral entities in the higher kingdoms. Those in the lower kingdoms are pacified with the assurance that their bliss is still far beyond anything they might have imagined, however imperfect it may be.

When you put it "the plan" in these terms it sounds a lot less inspiring, but it also makes a lot more sense.

"Contractual moral code" i.e. the covenant. The whole concept of Zion or the celestial kingdom is a covenant community i.e. a community bound by the same moral code. Well put.

I think the idea that everyone "enjoy that which they are willing to receive" (D&C 88:32) fits into this quite nicely.

[WalkerW]

Omg that was awesome.

I KNOW!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJ1wNiB80

[WalkerW]

When you put it "the plan" in these terms it sounds a lot less inspiring, but it also makes a lot more sense.

It can be less inspiring if one becomes bogged down in the somewhat materialistic terminology. But this type of analysis can also elevate it due to clarification.

[Maidservant]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! *wipes the tears from her eyes* ( . . . . until Richard Nixon!!)

[mfbukowski]

I am somewhat. I kind of have a mixture of (in this case) Harris' and Craig's position. This mainly stems from not equating "the Good" with God, but something that God chooses. D&C 93:23-34 seems applicable.

See also Blake T. Ostler, "A God Who Is Morally Praiseworthy: A Response to Carl Mosser," Element 4:2 (2008).

It's not that I disagree with Ostler, but I think the accepts too many of the old Neoplatonist categories implicitly why arguing against their basis; he would do much better adopting a Wittgensteinian approach to terms like "nature" and "rationality" and show that, for example in his arguments against Mosser, that the categories which Mosser accepts themselves need to go. What is God's "Nature"? Who knows what that even means?

In a sense, Ostler ends up himself setting up a "false dichotomy" by adopting the methodology of his opponents while arguing against their positions.

I don't know that it makes sense to describe a being who knows the future to be making a "choice" for example, or being either "rational" or "irrational". If you know exactly what will happen no matter what "choice" you make- can it correctly be characterized as a "choice"? Choices are something humans make from a subjective point of view NOT knowing which is best. WE cannot have objective knowledge of our choices- He presumably can.

I don't think that those language games (contexts) apply to God in most of these kinds of discourses. If no one can define "rationality" it is a little hard to decide if God is "rational" or not. Words like that are defined by their usage, not by some Platonic Form.

[mfbukowski]

I think all moral behavior is ultimately selfish, even if we don't realize it. Those of us who don't expect to go to heaven act morally because people expect us to, or because it makes us feel good, or because we believe moral behavior will be reciprocated by other people.

A more salient difference between religious and secular moralities is their level of rigidity. Whereas religious morality is often framed as a system of unalterable divine "laws" with dire consequences for disobedience, secular morality is usually framed as a set of pragmatic behaviors open to rational revision. This difference makes religious morality more compelling, but also more regressive. That is to say, religious people will be more strongly committed to their moral principles, but some of those principles may be irrational or even unjust by pragmatic standards.

Possibly, but that is not necessarily the case.

Some people think, some don't. Some people are religious, some are not. The two sets do not overlap perfectly.

[mfbukowski]

I've felt for a long time that a utilitarian ethic would seem to make the most sense within a Mormon cosmology. God is a particularly bright intelligence who finds himself amongst other, lesser intelligences and designs a "plan of happiness" to elevate them to his level. In doing so, he is bound by the natural contingencies of the universe. In other words, he seems to be trying to make the best of the state of affairs in which he has found himself by following a strategy of happiness-maximization for the largest possible number of people.

From this perspective, the plan of salvation is essentially a social contract ratified by a majority of spirits in the pre-existence. It is designed to assure universal bliss and peaceful coexistence. But not everyone is capable of living up to this ideal standard, so all the spirits are subjected to a "probationary" test by which it is determined who is capable of living up to the contractual moral code and who is not. Those who prove incapable are imprisoned in a lower kingdom where they can't disturb the bliss of the more intelligent and moral entities in the higher kingdoms. Those in the lower kingdoms are pacified with the assurance that their bliss is still far beyond anything they might have imagined, however imperfect it may be.

When you put it "the plan" in these terms it sounds a lot less inspiring, but it also makes a lot more sense.

If you tie that ethic to a Pragmatic epistemology- now you are really talkin'!

It's true because it works!

[mfbukowski]

It can be less inspiring if one becomes bogged down in the somewhat materialistic terminology. But this type of analysis can also elevate it due to clarification.

Yeah but aren't we materialists? Spirit being "more refined" and all?

[Chris Smith]

If you tie that ethic to a Pragmatic epistemology- now you are really talkin'!

It's true because it works!

I don't see much pragmatic difference between a Pragmatic epistemology and a critical realist one, so I try not to split hairs about such things.

[Mordecai]

I think all moral behavior is ultimately selfish...

I think if you have a deep comprehension of what others need without being blinded by biases, and you act sincerely to help others based on that comprehension, even at your own risk, I can't accurately describe that as selfishness. Your motivation isn't based on knowledge that you'll get something out of it, but may be based on faith in friendship. In other words, it's based on a belief in something you already have and not on something you may gain. I think that can fairly be described as unselfish.

[Chris Smith]

Mordecai,

Yes, you're right. People sometimes do act in service of goals that they perceive to run contrary to their own self-interest. They may do so out of instinct, momentum, conviction, insanity, or sheer social conditioning. I don't know that such behavior is always moral, but it's not exactly selfish, either. So your point is well-taken.

However, I'd add that our capability for this sort of altrustic self-sacrifice probably evolved because it enhances our genetic viability. So there's a sense in which this is genetically "selfish" behavior even if it isn't consciously so.

Peace,

-Chris

[Mordecai]

So there's a sense in which this is genetically "selfish" behavior even if it isn't consciously so.

Genes aren't capable of being selfish, anymore than a rock or a hamburger. Behavior whose source is, at least in part, the result of genetic programming is what it is, so we ought to just judge altruistic behavior as being altruistic, logically. Furthermore, there is a serious lack of evidence that altruistic behavior is the result of Darwinian processes.

[mfbukowski]

I don't see much pragmatic difference between a Pragmatic epistemology and a critical realist one, so I try not to split hairs about such things.

You could very well be right! But I am more into the "critical" than the "realism" part.

I am a recent fan of Polanyi though.

[Chris Smith]

Genes aren't capable of being selfish, anymore than a rock or a hamburger.

Obviously. The idea of "genetic selfishness" is just a useful metaphor.

Furthermore, there is a serious lack of evidence that altruistic behavior is the result of Darwinian processes.

All human behavior is the result of Darwinian processes, but it's true that not all behaviors seem to have been selected (another useful metaphor) because of their specific evolutionary utility. Some developed "accidentally," so to speak. Altruistic behavior could fall into this latter category, but I think the theoretical argument for its evolutionary utility is reasonably sound.

[Mordecai]

Obviously. The idea of "genetic selfishness" is just a useful metaphor.

True. But it's just a metaphor. It doesn't actually help an argument that altruism is selfish.

All human behavior is the result of Darwinian processes...

That is a claim that is not remotely supported by evidence. Even for a Darwinist. What about genetic drift? Some things are random, even for Darwinists.

Also, since the fossil record shows change that occurs far too fast for Dariwnian processes, it can't be the primary explanation for evolution.

[Chris Smith]

That is a claim that is not remotely supported by evidence. Even for a Darwinist. What about genetic drift? Some things are random, even for Darwinists.

You're misreading me. Read the rest of the sentence.

Also, since the fossil record shows change that occurs far too fast for Dariwnian processes, it can't be the primary explanation for evolution.

I'll take your word for it.

[mfbukowski]

I think if you have a deep comprehension of what others need without being blinded by biases, and you act sincerely to help others based on that comprehension, even at your own risk, I can't accurately describe that as selfishness. Your motivation isn't based on knowledge that you'll get something out of it, but may be based on faith in friendship. In other words, it's based on a belief in something you already have and not on something you may gain. I think that can fairly be described as unselfish.

Yes but such behaviors are beneficial for society. We need Mother Teresas, and others to perform "selfless service" and to make such values "ideal" - which ultimately enhances the quality of life for the society's members- and that ultimately perpetuates the culture itself.

"Selfless service" makes us happy- it is perhaps the highest form of happiness and fulfillment- happy people live longer, have more satisfying lives, contribute more to, and strengthen society in general.

[WalkerW]

Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008) and Michael Shermer, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics (Times Books, 2008) deal specifically with the concept of reciprocal altruism within the context of economics. The trait most likely developed out of social exchange. I plan on picking up Martin Nowak's new book soon as well as Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (Viking, 1997).

[Mordecai]

I'll take your word for it.

You could try Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution, or you could check out Sternberg's follow-up to Durett and Schmidt's (2008) attempt to refute Behe's book. That's a nice one, because it shows how even being as generous as possible with population dynamics (based on math and observation, i.e. science), Darwinism is too limited to cause changes that occur so quickly, e.g. whales evolving into aquatic creatures over only 1-3 million years. Even making multiple errors in favor of Darwinism, Durett and Schmidt's numbers still suggest it would take 30 million years for a mere 2 point coordinated mutation in mammals, comparable to the type we see with malaria developing resistance to chloroquine (that took 100 years, despite malaria's population being in the multi-trillion area, with a much, much shorter life cycle).

I have links to Sternberg's (double PhD, one in evolutionary biology) presentation (using Durett and Schmidt's numbers), actually, in the Antony Flew thread.

[Click the above arrow...]

Behe himself tries to discourage people from saying that he has proven Darwinism to be the wrong primary explanation for the origin of species, but he doesn't entirely deny it either. He suggests there is one more way Darwinism could be saved from the evidence, but when he describes what that is, it sounds like a gigantic long shot.

[Mordecai]

Yes but such behaviors are beneficial for society. We need Mother Teresas, and others to perform "selfless service" and to make such values "ideal" - which ultimately enhances the quality of life for the society's members- and that ultimately perpetuates the culture itself.

But the culture and the society are not the self.

"Selfless service" makes us happy- it is perhaps the highest form of happiness and fulfillment- happy people live longer, have more satisfying lives, contribute more to, and strengthen society in general.

I don't think the service in itself makes us happy. I think what makes us happy is faith in friendship and hospitality. The end result being beneficial doesn't make the action itself selfish. People whose goal is to be happy aren't. If that was the goal, the behavior would not have been based on what makes us happy, so the outcome would not be happiness.

[mfbukowski]

But the culture and the society are not the self.

Wanna bet?

How different would Mordecai be if he was born in China in 1100 BCE?

Would he be "Mordecai"?

I don't want to argue the point- that would take til Doomsday- and ultimately it is definitional anyway.

[Mudcat]

This isn't philosophically true, nor is it observably true when you even look at the community of non-believers. Moral philosophy is almost ALWAYS written without appealing to religion or god. All the arguments are written to work without appealing to deity or religion, because you will only convince those with your same religious beliefs. So a non-believer could prescribe to:

Moral relativism

Natural rights

Virtue ethics

And lastly, utilitarianism, which I find to be most popular, thanks to Sam Harris.

I don't think it matters much what a non believer prescribes to... I think I may have done a poor job of transmitting what I was thinking. Let me try and explain a bit better Eldwynn.

Take your most popular example of utilitarianism. It's the pursuit of the greatest happiness. The only thing it is grounded in is self relativism. It's plausible that two people could be utilitarians and both have very different ideas about what the "greatest happiness" actually is. As a phrase for examination, "We would be happier(or better off) if Ceasar was dead." Surely people of the era could look at that notion from many angles. The ultimate appeal to reconcile what the "greatest happiness" should be, leaves both people in a quandary, as their morality is self derived.. self grounded. That is where the buck stops.

But this point is actually secondary to my point. If God does not exist, then there is no over arching principles of morality and all we have to appeal to is whatever we come up with. If God does not exist, any ethical avenue you choose is likely as good as any other, because in reality there is no real "good" or "evil". The is simply what you personally think is good or evil. That is what I am saying.

But as it relates to the OP. If God does not exist, as a non believer would assert, then such a non believer holds an untenable position when trying to assert that they are more moral or better than a believer.

Many believers play spiritual experience as a trump card of sorts to prove their point. However such information is subjective to a third party and bears no significant weight to non believer. Essentially the argument in the OP is the inverse of such a notion and it is directed back at the believer. A believer would do well to avoid such argumentation and merely point out to the unbeliever that their own position is inconsistent with their own view.

There is nothing arbitrary about my morals.

If you hold the position that there is no God. Then I would challenge to you to prove that you don't self determine your own moral code.

Are you telling me that if you had a dream where god ordered you to strangle a baby, you would do it, and we should find you perfectly moral?

No I never said anything like that and don't plan to follow the rabbit trail you have offered, either.

Is the only thing that keeps you from committing adultery, murder, and stealing simply because you believe in god?

No I am not saying that either. I am saying that if God does not exist, all you are left with is what you particularly think is wrong.

Well in that case, I really hope you live nowhere close to me. It's funny that you only ever hear this argument (about non-believers) from those that DO believe in god. I have never heard a non-believer say "well, now that I don't believe in god, I have no reason to be moral. After all, morality is whatever I want it to be?"

Your taking a shallow view of the issue here. I am not saying that an atheist does not or cannot prescribe to whatever they deem to be moral. I am saying that in the absence of God, whatever one person thinks is moral is just as good as what another person thinks is moral, because all either can appeal to is "what they think is moral".

Moral behavior, in many cases, is built into our brains.

I agree, we were created in God's image, there ought to be a bit or carryover IMO. But I know that isn't your point nor would you likely agree that we are made in God's image.

Take incest for example. Very few humans think incest is permissible. Even if you explain that protection would be used, both were consenting adults, and both thought the experience was perfectly normal and constructive- the majority of people would be against it.

But all you are offering me is an argumentum ad populem. Most people do think incest is wrong, but you can't show me that it is built into our brains. That is a blind assertion on your part. Besides, why should anyone consider what "most people think" as a good way of deriving ethics.

Also worth noting, most people are religious, most religions address the impropriety of incest. So I think your declaration to the majority doesn't offer any strength to your position. If what "the majority of people" thought was a correct view, then non belief would be incorrect. Because most people believe in God.

Well it's not clear to me reading the bible that incest is morally wrong in the eyes of god- so why are so many religious and non-religious people naturally morally opposed?

I don't quite understand why you are seeing it that way Eldwynn. In the sense that Bible is a narrative, regarding incest, Lot and his daughters come to mind as an example.

But to say such action met with God's approval or that God was unclear about the topic, is quite another thing.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. -- Leviticus 20:14

God's disapproval of such action seems clear to me.

I would argue that many behaviors that you call morally permissible- I too call morally permissible. I don't need the bible to tell me that murder is morally wrong. I don't think you do either. I don't need D&C to tell me that excessive alcohol, meat, smoking etc. are not good for me. I am convinced by the evidence and abstain.

I would argue that if God does not exist, then there is nothing that is really right of wrong about anything. Doesn't matter that you and I might agree on what we think is good. Because we don't have any good way to assert that what we think is good is actually good.

Regards,

Mudcat

edit add...

@ The Nehor

You had my position pegged quite well. I appreciate you stepping up to bat on the position.

[Mordecai]

How different would Mordecai be if he was born in China in 1100 BCE?

Would he be "Mordecai"?

I would be... whatever the Chinese name for Mordecai is... right? Regardless, that's a real stretch to say that when I do good for society, it's selfish, particularly when my motive was not selfish and the actions didn't help me, other than an unintended side-effect of feeling good about how unselfish I was. I will concur that pretty much all behavior involves the self. Still, it's taking things too far if your thoughts and behavior were focused on other people's feelings and not your own, but you still say that's selfish.