Our posts are getting a little lengthy so I'll condense my reply to general points rather than go sentence by sentence...
1) Morality v Preference...
Morality is about choice and so synonymous with relative judgements of preference. There is no question that "tree is wrong" is not equivalent. But that's not what I said. The applicable analogy would be "Liking that tree is wrong", or "liking that tree more than this other tree, or more than the gods, is wrong".
Hence if ALL relatives can only exist because of an absolute truth, then the LIKING of chocolate over another flavour must be based on some absolute.
2) Morality v Habit...
I did not say that everyone was inherently honest. What I have been arguing is that each individual has an inclination to practice honesty to a certain degree, some more than others. That is aside from any moral imperative based on an external system.
Thus it is inaccurate to claim that without a belief in an absolute moral system one is more likely to be dishonest. First they may believe in a relative (external) personal code they should follow, and those who don't have such a code will STILL have personal habit... which may be for honesty.
It is not like people are generally chaotic in behavior, they tend to act in specific ways as is their personal nature. Then external moral, social, and legal systems are used to confine behavior further to an external ideal. A person's nature may be in tune or against any one or all of those systems, and an individual may attempt to submit to (or not) any of the above.
I personally do not believe or maintain moral codes, I am open to some social pressure but do not necessarily agree or obey all such, the same goes for laws. Thus I am never immoral (as that simply does not exist for me), but at times can be asocial, as well as criminal.
In the case of Haggard he clearly adopted a moral code, social norm, as well as legal code which were opposite his own nature and could not live up to any of those expectations. By his own accepted/stated definitions he is immoral, asocial, and criminal.
3) Laws and Morality...
Laws can be made based on morality, and clearly many have been. My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
You may discuss influences all you wish, but social contract assumes that LAW is made by people taking rights for themselves. This certainly CAN be done without having a concept of morality. For example I know I do not like pain and I know I want to live, hence whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant, I want to put into place laws which protect me from being killed. And it is not necessary to have experienced something to imagine it happening to onesself.
The fact that killers might try to hide what they have done means absolutely NOTHING about whether they feel any moral reality. Your use of this argument would not help you in the least. At times in history Xians have taken pains to hide what they were doing and thinking, when the practice of Xianity was outlawed. According to your theory Xians must have felt some moral reality that Xianity was bad.
In another post I raised the point that there were laws in support of slavery, against rights of various minorities, and now I will add against Xianity. What moral absolute were these driven by?
Likewise there are societies that did not have concepts of murder, much less legal charges, that are comparable to what you are discussing as universally understood. The Yanomamo allowed killings between tribes and to a great extent within them. IIRC they didn't even have laws to speak about, much less charges of murder. There were senses of loyalty and some killing of some people within one's group might elicit a reaction, but that is less than wrong because of having commited murder. Violence (as a sign of bravery and loyalty and power) was acceptable, including killing.
In feudal Japan some classes could kill at will. The idea of a specific killing being wrong at all would be wholly based on the situation and whether it defied/interfered with a specific command from above. Lying was also as undefined (perhaps more so) as murder. It was practically an artform. There was more to decry in tactless honesty, than cunning deceit (which could be honored even from one's enemy if it was clever enough).
4) Violence, Murder and Mayhem...
You posited several situations in an attempt to elicit a moral charge of right or wrong from me. You seem not to believe what I am telling you. You need to lift your moral goggles and try to understand what I am saying. Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike. Would I be viscerally shocked by a person being shot? Yes. Would I be repulsed by the choice of the shooters to gun him down and so want to defend him? It would depend on the situation. From what you described the answer would be yes. Would I be upset with someone taking money from him? Again it would depend on the situation, but from what you described yes I would.
In all cases I would find the actions criminal and generally act on them (or at least hope I would) based on their being criminal and the fact that I am part of that legal system which I want upheld so it would (I would hope) protect me when I am in that situation.
Visceral shock/disgust at the result of violence, personal distate with the choices others make, and engaging in the reciprocal/communal act of legal enforcment have NO inherent connection to any moral codes of right or wrong.
One can approach this situation from a different angle to watch morals fall away. Why was the man shot, and why was he robbed by those bystanders who would normally be expected to help?
In the case of the drive by, he was collateral damage for someone intending to do something beyond just pull a trigger... even if it was simply to engage in a show of bravery. Bush justified the deaths of how many wholly innocent Iraqis, as collateral damage just to make sure that people understood the US's word means something? That we would stand up against anyone who might possibly threaten us... even if they didn't actually do so. Scale is irrelevant, collateral damage is always the same. Are these wrong? Could you not find yourself in a situation where you might have to shoot someone and end up accidentally killing someone and consider it an acceptable loss? Morally okay, even if graphically repulsive, and not something you'd prefer to do bu habit, and understandably criminal according to some group?
How about the people that robbed the guy as he died? Perhaps they really needed money badly and in desperation they took the money (and what all) from a dying man. I am quite thankful that I have never known such desperation for money, but its quite possible that such a situation could arise. Couldn't it for you? Suppose they could help more with what they got than this person or anyone else, and so felt justified. Would it then be morally justified?
With all of these caveats the same actions would flit from moral to immoral. How can one judge what they are truly, outside of their surficial aspects... and even when revealed some would still find certain things moral and others not.
You might argue that my "personal distaste" is a sense of morality but that would not be accurate. That sense would remain regardless of the situational criteria that might effect morality, and indeed feeling I had to do something.
We can also change the example to the people shooting him in a blatantly unjust random killing, and the thieves stealing for pure greed with no "justification" of need. That would not change the moral landscape to "wrong" for me, and in either case (justified or no) my distaste for all actions would remain the same.
In fact the descriptions of why they did it... "unjust" and "greedy"... would be the proper labels. In both cases more unjust and greedy than is in my nature, and to a degree that I find distasteful. Not wrong because they are unjust or greedy, just different than my nature in degree.
Even in a "justified" setting, where some would claim it morally right, I would still find such things more unjust and greedy than is my nature. If forced to do such things by events beyond my control, it would be very hard for me. I would not feel wrong, just not myself.
Given a different life than the one I have come to lead my tastes might be very different. I might find such drivebys (or Bush's actions) palatable, or feel a bit jealous that I've never found someone so helpless such that I could get money as easily as them.
Their actions define their natures compared to mine, and mine to theirs. There are no absolutes here, and no sense of just plain right or wrong.
5) Bible and morality...
It seems to me that the Bible is rather relativist, or perhaps nonabsolutist in nature in many places. At the very least it argues for people not holding knowledge or claims of absolute morality.
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge. Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
Interesting to note is that God's response was not to say that they now knew of good and evil as He did, they did not become like Him. What he said is that they became LIKE gods, and so judge good and evil. It was judgement, particularly of assuming absolute moral codes, which is where they went wrong.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.
Edited by holmes, : Better emphasis
Edited by holmes, : clarity
Edited by holmes, : clarity
Edited by holmes, : one of these days I'm going to cut this post into little pieces
holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2