Blind ignorance

[Buffy]

Manners are not morals either. Manners are still behaviors. Morals are sets of attitudes that reflect themselves in behaviors, but the attitudes are the morals, not the behaviors.

I see this as a semantic argument then. I use the term manners in a much broader sense than you do, to encompass the notion not just that they are behaviors, but also that they are a societally accepted "code" who's source actually is not arbitrary, but whose source and purpose is understood and embraced by the community. Those are morals in my book, and I have perceived that the only reason to make a semantic distinction between "morals" and "laws and manners" is that historically the word morals does imply to many that it has a religious association--something I don't agree with either, thus leading to your conclusion in your post.

The argument is that morals are based on an external standard. It would not have to be the Bible, but it would have to be "external".

If I were to grant your distinction on semantic grounds then, it sounds like we'd agree then that morals do not have to have a religious source...That's all I was really saying, but:

The point was NOT that existence of morality is a proof of divine intervention. The point is that there is no such thing as morality without divine intervention.

This seems to indicate that you do believe that morals are provided by a divne source, and at the same time that the existence of morals do not imply devine intervention which would imply that there is another proof of the divine inspiration of morality. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this, because in my view its quite obvious how morals evolve in social groups through game theory, and there's lots of anthropological studies and experiments with humans and non-humans to back up much of this process, as well as many historical documents that show that morals/laws/manners were very well established in pre-monotheistic cultures (I think the mere historical existence of poly-theism given many religions' theological foundations an interesting issue, but that's a completely different thread).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I see this as a semantic argument then. I use the term manners in a much broader sense than you do, to encompass the notion not just that they are behaviors, but also that they are a societally accepted "code" who's source actually is not arbitrary, but whose source and purpose is understood and embraced by the community.

I think we are going in circles a little here. I began this argument by suggesting that there is really no such thing as "right" and "wrong" in the absence of an external reference standard (in post 48 above, and also in another thread). We could have majority opinion (e.g., laws, manners) or personal opinion (conscience) but both will inevitably drift over time, since there is no anchor. Since these standards wander over times, they are intrinsically arbitrary.

 

I mentioned (in another thread) that most folks in 1960 would have laughed if we suggested that 40 years later it would be commonly held that homosexuality (for example) is "normal". It is reasonable to think that 40 years form now we might consider pedophilia (for example) as normal as well. There is no intrinsic reason to make human pedophilia "wrong". It is a natural tendency in some people, and there is no genetic reason that we assign decisionmaking rights to humans at age 18 (versus 10, or even 6). I suspect that someone will argue that some folks are born this way. I am sure that NAMBLA would make an argument similar to this right now. Societal standards drift significantly over even a relatively short time. Morals do not.

... the only reason to make a semantic distinction between "morals" and "laws and manners" is that historically the word morals does imply to many that it has a religious association--something I don't agree with either, thus leading to your conclusion in your post.

I think by definition, morals HAVE to have an external reference standard. I do not think that majority opinion is "external". I think that (by definition) morals have to have a theistic foundation.

...This seems to indicate that you do believe that morals are provided by a divne source, and at the same time that the existence of morals do not imply devine intervention which would imply that there is another proof of the divine inspiration of morality.

Hmmmm. I suppose that one could use the existence of morality as an evidenciary element in an argument for the existence of God, but it is a pretty weak one. I agree with you that societies create behavioral standards. But they are so ephemeral, that it is hard to pin them down. However, at any one point in time, they look like a set of morals.

 

In sum, I contend that there is no such thing as '"right" and "wrong" without an external reference standard, and the only consistent reference standards are theistic.

[Buffy]

Ah, I see your distinction now. Its about constancy over time. Using that sense, I agree it would have to be theistically based. On the other hand, religious dictates of morality have indeed transmogrified over time: they have not remained constant at all. Slavery, ritual sacrifice and many other practices now considered immoral were in fact blessed or even commanded by the religious authorities. Probably the interpretation of this from a theistic point of view is that either man has had trouble interpreting the divine's message, or the existence of evil in religious authority or both... In any case individual religions do slow the change of social mores over time, so it does create more consistency, although if they're too slow, they get replaced...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Ah, I see your distinction now. Its about constancy over time....In any case individual religions do slow the change of social mores over time, so it does create more consistency, although if they're too slow, they get replaced...

I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the religions that DON'T get replaced than the ones that do.

[Buffy]

I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the religions that DON'T get replaced than the ones that do.

Although the ones that have lasted the longest have been the ones that have changed the most especially with respect to morals! ;)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Although the ones that have lasted the longest have been the ones that have changed the most especially with respect to morals!

Really? I would have thought the reverse. The vast majority of ancient religions that had great moral flexibility have expired (Egyptians, Greeks, etc). Today we have the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), Hindusim (and it's offshoot, Budhism) and then a set of rarer religions. The youngest of these is probably Islam. You think these long-lived religions have changed their moral frameworks materially?

[Buffy]

Really? I would have thought the reverse. The vast majority of ancient religions that had great moral flexibility have expired (Egyptians, Greeks, etc). Today we have the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), Hindusim (and it's offshoot, Budhism) and then a set of rarer religions. The youngest of these is probably Islam. You think these long-lived religions have changed their moral frameworks materially?

Oh yes! All of these religions have in the past justified racism and slavery and other bad stuff, but they've all managed to change and last. The eastern religions like Buddism and Hinduism especially so, because they truely avoid dogmatic edicts and are highly decentralized. You can compare Catholicism, which has constantly changed with lots of upheaval--from Byzantine split to the Spanish Inquisition to Vatican II--and survived quite well. The most fundamentalist Christian sects on the other hand, are all quite young, and even they seem to be transmogrifying too with drive-ins, church casual dress, and now splits based along *political* lines.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Oh yes! All of these religions have in the past justified racism and slavery and other bad stuff, but they've all managed to change and last.

Hmmm. This is a bit of a stretch. I acknowledge that it is difficult to figure out a host of Old Testamant references to slavery, but I think we agree on the complexity of OT translation. In the New Testament, slavery is not directly addressed, other than to treat slaves the same way you treat anyone else. And anyone can be racist (even a denomination) but the NT church certainly did not appear to be so. The moral framework in a mainline contemporary conservative church looks a lot like the moral framework from the first century Christians.

The eastern religions like Buddism and Hinduism especially so, because they truely avoid dogmatic edicts and are highly decentralized.

I do admit some ignorance on the history of Hinduism.

You can compare Catholicism, which has constantly changed with lots of upheaval--from Byzantine split to the Spanish Inquisition to Vatican II--and survived quite well. The most fundamentalist Christian sects on the other hand, are all quite young, and even they seem to be transmogrifying too with drive-ins, church casual dress, and now splits based along *political* lines.

But these are somewhat trivial undulations in the moral framework. There is not too much drift from the mean over 2000 years.

[Buffy]

But these are somewhat trivial undulations in the moral framework. There is not too much drift from the mean over 2000 years.

I'd argue if you don't see much difference between the various frameworks, then its evidence that they are universal, in which case all religions are equivalent and that the actual God of the Universe doesn't care what religion you follow, and that she didn't really have to give it to anybody, its just the way it evolved! ;)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Oh and actually, that's my point. I don't see much difference between these moral frameworks and believe that they evolved prior to our historical religions...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Oh and actually, that's my point. I don't see much difference between these moral frameworks and believe that they evolved prior to our historical religions

Let me see if I understand you. You are suggesting that a moral framework similar to the model advocated by the Bible has been extant since long before the Bible (i.e., before Abrahamic history at about 2000-ish BC)?

 

If so, do you suggest that when societal moral fabric begins to fray (like in contemporary society) that it will return "automatically" back to its mean position?

[Fishteacher73]

Natural selection works on societies as well. In pre-history local tribes battled and many were lost. Those that could not form stable social stuctures dissolved. As I have stated in other threads, I think the basic underpinnings of most religions were essentailly a code in which provided the most stable and safest cultures. There were probably many variations, but the ones that kept the basic tennets of survival (primitive) were the ones that lasted and propogated.

 

This would not work now because the human race is a global comunity that is too inter- connected. Possibly with a dozen or so generations in primitive conditions with a drastically diminished population density there would be the re-emergence of the basiics that allowed the most prosperous biological existence. This would easily be assigned to a deity (for both identifocation as well as leadership purposes). Poof...the basics of judeo-christian dogma are reborn (or would that be born again? ;) )

[Buffy]

Let me see if I understand you. You are suggesting that a moral framework similar to the model advocated by the Bible has been extant since long before the Bible (i.e., before Abrahamic history at about 2000-ish BC)?

Yup. Where ever Moses, Budda, pick your favorite original prophet, got it from is just the first time it got recorded for posterity. Existed long before then, and we have evidence of it too in societal rituals of Neandertals etc.

If so, do you suggest that when societal moral fabric begins to fray (like in contemporary society) that it will return "automatically" back to its mean position?

Like Fish sez: I'm arguing that natural selection drives morals back to an equilibrium because societies the things that are in the moral code by definition are the things that keep societies heathy and deviating from them selects out those societies over time (or more correctly, the deviant behavior within them). I'd argue that the current "fraying of the moral fabric" really isn't that bad if you look back at history, and its returned to equilibrium many times in the past...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I'd argue that the current "fraying of the moral fabric" really isn't that bad if you look back at history, and its returned to equilibrium many times in the past...

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

The argument is that morals are based on an external standard. It would not have to be the Bible, but it would have to be "external". I agree you could still have "conscience" and "manners" without an external reference. Conscience is a personal framework, and manners are a social norm. Neither has a basis in morality.

 

The point was NOT that existence of morality is a proof of divine intervention. The point is that there is no such thing as morality without divine intervention.

 

I find the history of this stuff very interesting but, I'd appreciate it if you'd come back to the above thought brought up by BIOCHEMIST.

 

Bio, if we were to abstract out a set of 'goods', would you consider that divine?

 

Also, a moral code would not exist prior to identifying "conscience" and "manners", right? But I would think that a moral code would only make sense after you abstracted out the similarities within a cross section of many peoples' "conscience" and "manners".

 

But here I'm trying to build a thought upon something that hasn't been clearly identified. In this case, 'moral code' (and probably conscience and manners too). What the hell is a moral code, anyway? What is its intent? Being an invention of man, it must have an intended use.

 

Is it to guide human action? If so, all human action? Actions relative to myself and a tree or actions between myself and you. Even actions not visible to others (i.e. thoughts)? What is the scope of morality?

 

And where does blind ingorance plop down (other than in my chair). ;)

[tarak]

It is not easy to format your software,i mean emptying your mind and there is no blind ignorance about it

[Biochemist]

I'd argue if you don't see much difference between the various frameworks, then its evidence that they are universal, in which case all religions are equivalen...

My point was not that all faith-based moral codes are the same as each other, but that each one stays reasonably contant over time. The three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have some common moral elements, of course, because they have common scriptural foundations in the Old Testament. In contrast, the moral standards of Hinduism are materially different than Christianity (for example).