Among the strongest instincts in the world is self preservation. The theory of evolution survives because of this principle: flora and fauna will do whatever is necessary to survive. In human beings, the need for self-preservation extends into a rational state - an "if/then" statement - that could be stated thus: "IF I am to preserve those things most important to me, including my life and the lives of those for whom I care most deeply, THEN I must expect that others will wish likewise for themselves."
This communal sense of self-preservation is among the oldest elements in human civilization: the need for a state is predicated upon such. Among prehistoric peoples, tribes would coalesce around the strongest members, those who could not only preserve themselves best, but also train others to do so. The feudal system of governing is based - in part - upon this principle: in exchange for protection from a feudal lord, to whom one paid taxes, one expected a certain level of legal protection for those things held most dear to the self. Of course, this did not preclude corruption - it was merely a basis upon which the system was supported. On a macro-scale, the feudal lord was bannerman to a higher lord. When the realm was threatened, the highest lord of the land would call his bannermen, who would, in turn, call upon "their people," and the collective force - read: ARMY - would protect the land and holdings, thereby the way of life... extrapolate downward.
In a rational, republican system, such as ours, "the people" pay taxes to the Federal government, who, in turn, allocates nationally-held resources for the preservation and protection of those to whom its existence is owed (again, the people).
Where does morality fit in? We'll use a couple of "if/then" statements, with a moral, and further, a legal statement:
- IF I want to remain alive, THEN I must expect that others want the same; therefore, IF staying alive is "good," THEN it must be "bad" to take a life. We'll make a law against murder, but IF someone tries to take my life ("bad") then it is legal to do whatever is necessary to protect myself ("good"). So - murder=illegal, unless in self-defense.
- IF I want to keep my stuff, THEN I should expect others will want to do the same; therefore, IF keeping my stuff is "good," THEN taking it must be "bad". We'll make a law against taking other people's stuff.
-------
currently on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller
4 comments:
1) "IF I am to preserve those things most important to me, including my life and the lives of those for whom I care most deeply, THEN I must expect that others will wish likewise for themselves."
Therefore, whatever I wish for myself defines morality?
2) "IF staying alive is "good," THEN it must be "bad" to take a life. We'll make a law against murder, but IF someone tries to take my life ("bad") then it is legal to do whatever is necessary to protect myself ("good"). So - murder=illegal, unless in self-defense."
That's one viewpoint.
But why assume that staying alive is good? Many people end their own life, for various reasons. "IF my life sucks and I want to die, THEN why not end it"? The goodness of staying alive is no longer true for this individual, and is not necessarily bad to take a life. Would it not be completely moral for that person to end his own life (perhaps the opposite of what that person used to believe)? Extrapolating from there, why couldn't such individuals reason that it not immoral to help end the lives of others who are worse off than themselves? Similarly, "IF XYZ's life sucks and wants to end it, THEN why not help him"?
Say one person gets jealous of another person for whatever reason. For the love of a sweet babe. For self-advancement. Whatever. Why would it be immoral for that jealous person to hamper, steal from, or even kill his opponent? After all, it's self-preservation and survival of the fittest.
3) "IF I want to keep my stuff, THEN I should expect others will want to do the same"
What if I'm so poor that I'd rather die than to continue living in poverty? I can't bear being constantly hungry. I cannot stand not having the niceties of my youth. If I were to go another day like this, surely I'd go mental. Why could I not reason "I'd rather die than continuing living like I am, but I'd rather live with better circumstances than die. So rather than die, I could take (steal) from others who have abundance"? This is what is necessary for me to survive, and therefore it is moral. Or is it?
***************
4) THE POINT.
***************
a) My above responses are just a couple of examples, and are admittedly not the best or most illustrative. The main point is that every person is unique and has their own specific set of circumstances and lessons learned. In each case above, self concludes their own morality based on their perception using if/then statements, and is rightly justified. And thus lies the problem. How can two conflicting moralities, or a change in what is moral by one person, give a definition to what is moral? Since morality is different for every self, morality - what IS right and just - does NOT exist.
b) Your theoretical response, too, is a religion of sorts. It's called "self". Self is the focal point, self produced this idea, and self creates morality. Self, in essence, is the higher power.
c) Could it be possible that we all can sense or have an instinct concerning true morality? Could it be possible that we need to be told what is moral?
5) You keep referring to a "mythological cloud-being".
I find this phrase quite presumptuous. How do you know that such a being is fictitious and "cloudy" (intentionally mysterious)? It is known that there are more things about which we know nothing than things about which we know something. Does god "self" tell you "IF I am created, THEN my spiritual creator should concretely and plainly present himself to me"? Just because a spiritual creator doesn't check in with us every so often, audibly talking to us or whatnot, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Sure, self would prefer this, but perhaps there is a reasoning for this, such as it does not accomplish the purpose of said spiritual creator.
But don't take it from me. How about Isaac Newton? Arguably the most brilliant scientist who ever lived, he has bullets on his resume for the discovery of calculus, the 3 fundamental laws of physics, and the composition of white light (optics), just to mention *a few*. (Before the age of 30, by the way.) He has this to say:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier seashell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Also relevant is that he was a deeply religious man, and rigorously applied scientific study to his religious text and wrote over 1 million words pertaining to his study/findings on the subject. Yes, you can very easily find quotes of brilliant people to the contrary. But the fact remains, at worst you cannot conclude that all purported spiritual creators are fictitious.
I never called it religion - humanism - I said it was hypothetical.
1)Make an actual connection - self preservation does not equate to "whatever I want, others want."
It equates to "Whatever I need, others need." Needs do not equal desires.
2)You're assuming that this individual has stopped understanding that others still feel the need that, until the moment at which he decided to off himself, he himself had. Had this individual lived his entire life wanting to die, never understanding the need to live, then your statement would be correct.
Again, I'm not discussing WANTS but needs - basic NEEDS.
3)That's a question I wasn't discussing, but I can extend a corrollary: Is it moral for a society to watch its citizens descend to the state at which they must steal in order to live?
THE POINT - morality is socially constructed. Again. Asking such questions is entering into a cultural debate - at which point we begin to learn what, as a community, we feel is moral.
"Mythological cloud being" - okay, a five tentacled creature from another dimension. I am a presumptuous bastard. You don't have to like it. Newton himself wasn't above mistakes - in fact, as a friend of mine who recently completed a Ph.D. in physical chemistry pointed out, Newtonian Physics is mostly wrong. It works okay most of the time, but at the atomic level, it's way off. I am not Newton. Newton was, no doubt, a great man - calculus, apple breaks, the whole nine. I was extending a hypothesis about socially constructed morality without religion: one you have yet to fully address. I don't think religion is bad. I think that the ways in which CERTAIN human beings interpret religion is bad.
I'm not a scientist. I'm a rhetorician. The name of that game is construction and interpretation. If the weblog wasn't such an awkward means of transmission, I have a number of scholarly pieces about social constructs of history, politics, etc. that I'd love to post. After I get my homepage back up and running (probably June - I've got finals of my own, final papers to grade, and after that, the birth of my daughter to attend to) those will be posted and available for download.
By the way - I hope you realize that I do welcome your discussion. I know that I sound like an arrogant bastard - I am in some cases (I'd have to say that in many, I'm not - I'm terrified of my coming child: I've never held a baby in my life, much less fed or cared for one). It is good to know that someone reads what I have to say and that what I say is challenging enough to evoke such thoughtful responses.
So - Thank you!
BY THE WAY - IDENTIFY YOURSELF! I like to know who's reading. You can just e-mail me, too. The address is in the profile.
1) "I never called it religion - humanism - I said it was hypothetical."
I know you didn't. *I* was relating it to a religion.
2) "self preservation does not equate to "whatever I want, others want."
It equates to "Whatever I need, others need.""
Ah, but how do you know what you need? At some point one must make this determination, or else we are all mindless drones. It's whatever self determines I need, and whatever self determines others need.
3) "You're assuming that this individual has stopped understanding that others still feel the need that, until the moment at which he decided to off himself, he himself had. Had this individual lived his entire life wanting to die, never understanding the need to live, then your statement would be correct."
Perhaps he didn't stop understanding that need, but does it necessarily matter? His need and desire at this point is death. The others haven't yet learned better. Or maybe he always did have a bad childhood/life, molested, raped, neglected, and beat. Whatever the excuse, the example here is that this person decides what is moral.
4) "THE POINT - morality is socially constructed."
*Laws* are socially constructed, which are based on morality. Without religion, morals would be defined each to his own, thus effectively negating morality. Just like children, we need to be told what is moral, which is what religion does.
5) "Newton himself wasn't above mistakes - in fact, as a friend of mine who recently completed a Ph.D. in physical chemistry pointed out, Newtonian Physics is mostly wrong."
Yes, I am aware of quantum physics vs. Newtonian ("classical") physics. Might I add, though, that Newtonian physics isn't a mistake, but rather it just doesn't always hold true at the quantum level. Nevertheless, the reason I drug Newton into this is that he's a perfect example of a brilliant man (exceptionally so, no less) who knew that he didn't know everything. He understood that there was so much more to be learned, even of the unseen supernatural.
6) ""Mythological cloud being" - okay, a five tentacled creature from another dimension. I am a presumptuous bastard."
First of all, that's a super-summary of a religion that most likely doesn't do it justice. But my main response to this, is that one of our purposes in life is to personally decide upon a religion for ourself, whatever that may be. Can we decide that they all sound wacko? Sure. BUT, keep in mind that we as a people in general know so incredibly little -- even such a brilliant man as Newton knew this. Therefore, it would be good practice not to presume all supreme-beings as mythological.
7) "I was extending a hypothesis about socially constructed morality without religion: one you have yet to fully address."
If I understand this statement correctly, I addressed it in my previous post under the section entitled "The Point" (4a, to be exact). Since morality is defined differently for every self in your theoretical response (which supposes morality without religion), morality does not, in fact, exist.
8) "I don't think religion is bad. I think that the ways in which CERTAIN human beings interpret religion is bad."
Agreed. Some blindly believe anything. And the more I grow the more I am coming to believe this: while there is a definite element of faith to religion, God also gave us a brain for a reason. We must use it when studying religion and it's ancient texts. Newton did.
9) "So - Thank you! BY THE WAY - IDENTIFY YOURSELF!"
Yes, great discussion! But I must pass, for I am an enigma wrapped in a mystery. You may refer to me as "The Lone Ranger".
Post a Comment