God and Sheri S. Tepper

I abbreviated my prior answer. I would submit that, to continue the analogy, the church was the judge while the larger culture was the jury.Take away the church and you have to fall back to a different cultural judge (arbiter of morality)...hence, in my opinion, the church acted as the judge of morality in western civilization (post-Roman pagan period).wr/Geno

I'm sorry Paul, I didn't think I was doing that. Let me look at it again.wr/Geno

Right, but where did they get those morals? They didn't get them from god because there is no god. So where did they come from? From humans, of course. Humans determine their own morality. Those societies who don't rapidly disintegrate or detroy themselves. There's a selection pressure on societies to come up with suitable morals.

This is precisely why I hate that term. "Morality" is defined by judgement. If you say that society is the judge of what is moral, I can understand that. I would just say that in Western Civilization (from Roman times) the Church has been the judge and society has been following those judgements set down by the Church. I'd say that morality outside of a society doesn't mean anything. What's moral in one won't be moral in another, therefore "morality" cannot be common to humanity. The concept of morality may be, but those concepts are going to be defined in vastly different ways in practical terms.So in sum, I would clarify that morality is defined by society. In each society, there is a "moral authority". In our society that moral authority was the Church.Until recent times, that is...which was in my original post on the topic.wr/Geno

Well, as I said quite some time ago:

quote:

---

Do I think this is the "fall" of western civilization? NOT AT ALL! The church is being replaced by a new (better) belief system--scientific enquiry. Starting in the 1500's, the church has been giving way to scientific enquiry and the age of rational thought. What we are seeing now are the death throes. It will be up to us--the rationalists to define the new "morality"--and even define if we need morality at all.

---

There is a significant thread, oddly named "Proofs of God"-- which deals with this subject. I contributed quite a bit to the thread, so I am pointing you in its direction. EvC Forum: Proofs of GodBTW, I think we agree. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thank you John...and thanks for the link.PS: I love your website.[This message has been edited by Geno, 06-15-2003]

Well, I'm still reading that string...very interesting. I thank all for the primer on fallacies!PS. I take back my previous comment on your website (so I can't be accused of appeal to flattery!)Seriously, very interesting background to this discussion, many thanks.Geno

Maybe we're arguing at cross-purposes; you seem (and correct me if I'm wrong) to think that "morality" refers to judgements we make about the behavior of others. I believe that morality is when we act against our immediate self-interest to either promote the interests of other persons or to secure a larger, longer-term self-interest - preferably both.If you're arguing that religion has been - and continues to be - the proponent of judging others, I'd say you're right. I don't think that's true morality, though. True morality is doing what is best for the most people for the longest time. (What "best" means usually refers to their happiness and fulfillment, as well as providing for basic needs.)That's my view, anyway. In terms of moral codes I don't think that any particular moral precept is "universal", but I do think that succesful moral codes share certain restrictions - universal meta-morals, perhaps we could say. Or a deep moral grammar, to borrow from Chomsky.

I think the "morality" discussion has successfully run its course--I know I've learned a lot....unless anyone wants to continue it?I think where we've agreed is when I've put "morality" in quotes. You point out that you don't think it's true morality and I've put it in quotes on purpose.Having closed that, I think the following comment is fascinating: you also define morality as this: Both imply the evolutionary altruism argument--is that your basis? I find it very interesting.
Do you find any morality in selfish actions?As mentioned earlier I would claim moral actions are those that improve the chances of my genetic material successfully continuing into the future. This may also include actions that appear to be altruistic, but are not in reality. This covers a broad spectrum of observable behavior--for instances, I am a good neighbor. Only because I believe that it increases social stability--which is a good thing for my genetic material's future chances of survival, etc.Here's the funny part: I mentioned earlier that I felt that most of us had become optimized by to cooperate within social groups; however, two smaller groups had not: outcasts and leaders. Now, people might say that the outcasts would be abysmal failures, so those outcast traits should have disappeared, but I'm not so sure. Outcasts do have leaders--some, a few, may have survived...if they did, they were in a prime position for evolutionary forces to work on their genes: small sample group, survival at stake. Most outcasts probably died and died quickly, but some may have adapted--may have OUT-adapted the original group. That leaves US with the possibility that we may have a nasty "mean" streak lurking...The leadership group of course survived--and prospered most likely--the term "alpha" male comes to mind. But if I think where these leaders may have come from: social group members who couldn't follow the rules...so they challenged and took authority--seen in primate groups all the time.Both of these options make me wonder if it really is to my best genetic advantage to be good little boy and follow the rules...?===================================================
I would caution anyone reading this post not to assume anything about my use of the word morality without understanding the definition process discussed in the previous 69 posts.BTW, I HIGHLY recommend anyone reading this to go to the thread provided by John in post#66. Start at about post #94 in that thread for some insightful comments on this topic.

I think that humans are full of genetic predispositions. We manage to overcome some of them some of the time.To me it will be more and more necessary to act rationally using what we know and our brains. And often this will mean not doing what we have evolved to do.We must extend the built in connection to small social groups with a wider reach. We must look ahead beyound the hear and now. We must avoid the reoccurance of tragedies of the commons by thinking things through.We are animals but we can pull outselves up to act beyond what that means.Not for any personal or genetic gain. Just because we can.... maybe

YOu seem to be assuming that if different societies have different rules it is impossible that the rules could be derived from humanity. But why ? Different circumstances, different historical contingencies will produce different results. The rules will still be derived from humanity whatever the they turn out to be.And I would say that "moral authorities" have come and gone, had great power and virtually none thoroughout history. They aren't an essential feature.

Sometimes I wonder if we should. I mean, if morality is derived from humanity, why should we try? I say, just sit back "and let the good times roll!" (this was kind of a joke--sorry) Why?

quote:

---

Just because we can.

---

oh.I will admit that some of what you say may be necessary...but I don't think I can ever agree to act in a certain manner just because I can. Anytime someone tells me I "must" do something, it makes me want to say, "prove it!"/Geno

We may not be the special creation of a god but to the best of our, knowledge we are pretty special. If we don't step beyond our evolutionary past then we won't realize all that we are capable of. (and may, or probably, won't survive)We are a fortunate happenstance, let's made the best of it.

"Derived from humanity"...that's an interesting phrase. Could you expand on what you mean by that? I'm also interested in the rest of your quote above. I could ask some questions or make an observation, but I'd really like to hear your ideas on this... I would say that when a moral authority doesn't have any (authority, that is) anymore, it is not a moral authority. Perhaps you could provide an example?