arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Recently on CreationTalk I was challenged about moral relativism. Since I am a relativist, and quite a forthright and outspoken one, I wrote this opinion piece. I also posted it on my LiveJournal and on the Atheism Community where it engendered 120-odd responses and a spin-off thread.
It's quite long, so feel free to totally ignore this thread if you don't want to read it.
0. Introduction
Premise: Morals are relative, not absolute. They are relative to religion, they are relative to society, and they are relative to time. I will cover all three aspects of moral relativism in this article, since they are all related.
Morals are incredibly complex. What is considered moral by one person, one church or one society will not necessarily be considered moral by another person, church or society. There is moral ambiguity everywhere. Some moral structures will agree on some points and disagree on others. Some acts will be considered immoral in some circumstances and moral in others. I will use the phrase "moral complex", both to signify that this is a complex idea, and because any structure of morals will consist of a large number of interconnecting parts.
I will establish in this article three items: First, that morals are derived from religion. Second, that they sustain society. Third, that they change over time. By these three facts it will be seen that any conception of "absolute" morals is at best parochial and at worst fodder for war and conflict.
I will present two examples of extinct moral codes - the Japanese Bushido and the Old Religion of Fiji - and demonstrate that the behaviour that was engendered by these moral complexes was, at that time and in that place and to those people, equally moral regardless of how we now view these behaviours.
In this discussion I hope that the reader will glean the critical subtext of how important morals are to a stable society. Any conception that atheists or moral relativists are immoral must be wrong, since this would equate them with anarchists, which is both untrue and insulting to most atheists and moral relativists.
1. Definitions
Moral adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Let's discard 5 and 6 for the moment, since they are irrelevant to our discussion. From the bare dictionary definition, it is clear that the word "moral" is a descriptor of what is "right" or what is "good". Those terms themselves can have ambiguous definitions, but for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that we all know what these terms mean. However, I will return to them shortly.
Note that there is nothing in this dictionary definition (which I got from dictionary.com) that mentions God or any external source or influence. That's OK - it's just a dictionary, and if we relied purely on dictionary definitions, the language would stagnate. The term is replete with religious connotations in most peoples' minds, and for good reason.
Most people believe that the "moral complex" is handed down to us by a deity. In modern "western" society, this is generally assumed to be the Christian God (or the Islamic God or the Hebrew God, which pretty much amount to the same thing). This deity gave humanity commands and prohibitions. As such, the moral complex is absolute. God says what is right and what is wrong - what is Good and what is Evil, and this is immutable and unchanging.
However, the so-called absolute moral code has changed since the time of Moses. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were forbidden to work on the Sabbath, under pain of being stoned to death. We no longer believe that that is an absolute requirement. They were prohibited from eating shellfish, or from trimming their beards. They were required to be circumcised - as a moral requirement, not a practical or a legal one. Circumcision represented the Hebrew's covenant with God. It also, of course, had a practical consideration (you don't want to get sand in there) but that was not the reason Hebrews were circumcised. They were circumcised as a moral command.
This brings us to the difference between a moral command and a moral prohibition. In the former, you do something because you believe that it is right. In the latter, you don't do something because you believe that it is wrong.
2. Different religions have different morals
Today, it appears that moral prohibitions are more important than moral commands. Don't kill, don't steal, don't abort a pregnancy, don't wear a hat in church, etcetera. However, this is only from our point of view, and in fact it is erroneous.
Islamic fundamentalists have a moral command to kill the unbelievers. This is a command that was given to them by God - a covenant. They fully and completely believe that they are doing God's work by detonating bombs in Jerusalem restaurants.
Charles Manson (as far as can be told) believed that he had a moral command to bring about the apocalypse.
I'm going to exclude Hitler and the Nazis from the discussion for the moment, since it is pretty clear that Hitler's path was a social one, rather than a religious one. My main point is that different religions have different moral complexes (different social philosophies have different moral complexes as well, but I'll leave that can of worms closed for the moment).
Every religion believes that its moral complex is absolute. Every religion believes that its moral complex is the one and only code that has been handed to humankind by God (or Krishna or Buddha or Confucius or whatever). This is why I say that morals are relative. The only argument that can be made against this statement is "but they're wrong and we're right", which is not only presumptuous, but also incredibly arrogant.
In most industrialised first-world countries (such as the USA, UK and Australia), our civil laws are ultimately based on a religious moral complex - that of Christianity. Other countries (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran) are based on an Islamic moral complex. Up until the last hundred years, China's civil law was based on Confucianism (which I will - somewhat erroneously - class as a religion for the purposes of the discussion). In virtually all cases, civil law equates to religious moral complex.
3. What does this mean?
The common conception of moral relativism is that since morals are relative, you should be able to do what you like with no fear of consequences. This is false.
A moral relativist recognises that the consequences of one's actions are social, not spiritual. If I kill my neighbour and steal all his stuff, no matter how "right" or "wrong" it feels to me, I will be caught by the police and jailed. This means that we are not free to do as we wish, and as a result, we do not wish to do those things that have severe consequences.
Relativism is not an absence of morals, it is a recognition of the source of morals - not God or Confucius, but society.
In Australia, as I mentioned, civil law derives from the Judeo-Christian moral structure. But it is also separated from it. Why the Judeo-Christian? For two reasons: First, it was the dominant structure when our civil law was formed, at the time of Federation in 1801. The USA has a similar history - with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence drawing strongly from the Judeo-Christian moral complex. The second reason is that the Judeo-Christian moral complex makes for a stable society.
The American Civil War of 1861–1865 was the last time different morals came into major conflict in that country. The morals of the Union triumphed over the morals of the Confederation, and slavery was abolished (how's that for a 10-second summary of one of the most complex conflicts of the last three centuries?). Since the end of the Civil War, there has been no instance where the difference in morals has erupted into open war. Since then, pro-life activists notwithstanding, the US has been more or less stable with respect to its morals (and slavery is now considered immoral). But there are still differences.
Some states do not believe that it is appropriate to execute criminals. Some states do. Take the recent trial of Zacarias Moussaoui - the only person to be tried in the US over the September 11 terrorist attacks. He was eligible for the death penalty under US law. Should he have received it? I'm not going to answer that question, because my morals are not what I want to talk about.
Judeo-Christian morals have emerged out of a pseudo-Darwinian process. Our current moral structure has survived longer (with modifications) than all others. That is purely and simply because it works. Societies based on the Judeo-Christian moral structure are more stable than others, which have gradually disintegrated and vanished. When considering morals, it is enlightening to examine some of those moral structures that have not survived this quasi-evolutionary process.
4. Examples
In feudal Japan, the samurai class had the right to execute those who offended them. They had a duty to obey their lord in all things, up to and including death. If they disgraced their lord, they had a duty - a moral obligation - to extirpate their transgression by committing suicide. Peasants had a moral duty to support their lord by farming rice (which was also used as currency). The lord had a moral duty to protect his lands and his people from invaders - but the individuals under his aegis were ultimately expendable.
This is a very different moral complex than the one now in place in Japan. Although some aspects of honour and face have survived, the samurai class has disappeared, and along with it the casual attitude to individual death. The Meiji Restoration and the Japanese defeat in World War II primarily contributed to this change in moral structure. Since then, Japan has grown to be one of the world's major economic powers, under the stable Judeo-Christian moral complex.
My favourite example of relative morals is the pre-Christian religion of Fiji. Under this religion, people had a moral obligation to cook and eat their enemies. This was not simple savagery - it was an aspect of their religion. By eating an enemy, you denied them entry to the afterlife. Hence, it was a moral duty - a sacrament.
The Old Religion was finally exterminated with the conversion of the King Cakobau in the mid-19th century, and I think that today most of us (including me) would feel that this was a good thing. The Old Religion was not a stable strategy for a civilisation, as evidenced by the fact that before the Christian missionaries arrived, Fiji was a melange of warring petty kingdoms with no structure or history that we would recognise. Hence, although they survived, they did not thrive. Today, although there is a huge number of different Christian, Moslem and Hindu sects represented in the population, they have a "civilised", progressive government and economy, thanks to the Judeo-Christian moral complex.
5. Conclusion
A moral structure is determined by society and its religion, and not by any absolute imposition from outside of society. Every religion claims that it has the correct moral structure, because it is the correct religion, and all the others are wrong, misguided or mistaken. This is true of the Catholic, the Sunni, the Hindu, and the Wicca. It is a defining feature of modern religions that they are all mutually exclusive. Followers of each religion will say that their morals have been given to them by their God, Gods, prophets, or divine revelation.
The conception of "absolute" morals is therefore intimately tied to the conception of "absolute" religion - the belief that one's own religion is the only true religion, and all other religions (and moral complexes) are therefore inferior. This is unsupportable except by blind faith, and it has been the cause of crusades, jihads, pogroms and inquisitions.
Because different nations and societies undergo a Darwin-esque pseudoevolution by competing with one another, those that have prospered in the modern world have emerged the strongest, with the foundations and structures that have helped them to overcome their enemies, build their economies, and create the levels of nationalism and patriotism that define their citizens. It so happens that the modern Judeo-Christian moral complex is fully compatible with these foundations and structures. This is not a coincidence.
In modern times, most religions' moral complexes will generally agree with each other on most points, which may give the illusion that despite differences, they all come from a common source. This is almost true. Currently successful moral complexes are those that have survived the gauntlet of war, economic and social pressure. Since the influences are similar, it is logical that the results are similar. The pressure to change comes from below, not from above.
It should be noted however, how much this surviving moral complex has changed since its inception. Judeo-Christian morals have in their history encouraged slavery, brutality, subjugation of women, crusades, witch-burning, persecution, genocide, torture, murder and a host of other things that today we would consider morally wrong.
It is good for all of us that morals change with society over time. As the society gets stronger through adversity, so does the moral complex. We are the latest incarnation of this trial-by-fire, and after hundreds of years, we appear to be finally getting it right.
It's quite long, so feel free to totally ignore this thread if you don't want to read it.
0. Introduction
Premise: Morals are relative, not absolute. They are relative to religion, they are relative to society, and they are relative to time. I will cover all three aspects of moral relativism in this article, since they are all related.
Morals are incredibly complex. What is considered moral by one person, one church or one society will not necessarily be considered moral by another person, church or society. There is moral ambiguity everywhere. Some moral structures will agree on some points and disagree on others. Some acts will be considered immoral in some circumstances and moral in others. I will use the phrase "moral complex", both to signify that this is a complex idea, and because any structure of morals will consist of a large number of interconnecting parts.
I will establish in this article three items: First, that morals are derived from religion. Second, that they sustain society. Third, that they change over time. By these three facts it will be seen that any conception of "absolute" morals is at best parochial and at worst fodder for war and conflict.
I will present two examples of extinct moral codes - the Japanese Bushido and the Old Religion of Fiji - and demonstrate that the behaviour that was engendered by these moral complexes was, at that time and in that place and to those people, equally moral regardless of how we now view these behaviours.
In this discussion I hope that the reader will glean the critical subtext of how important morals are to a stable society. Any conception that atheists or moral relativists are immoral must be wrong, since this would equate them with anarchists, which is both untrue and insulting to most atheists and moral relativists.
1. Definitions
Moral adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Let's discard 5 and 6 for the moment, since they are irrelevant to our discussion. From the bare dictionary definition, it is clear that the word "moral" is a descriptor of what is "right" or what is "good". Those terms themselves can have ambiguous definitions, but for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that we all know what these terms mean. However, I will return to them shortly.
Note that there is nothing in this dictionary definition (which I got from dictionary.com) that mentions God or any external source or influence. That's OK - it's just a dictionary, and if we relied purely on dictionary definitions, the language would stagnate. The term is replete with religious connotations in most peoples' minds, and for good reason.
Most people believe that the "moral complex" is handed down to us by a deity. In modern "western" society, this is generally assumed to be the Christian God (or the Islamic God or the Hebrew God, which pretty much amount to the same thing). This deity gave humanity commands and prohibitions. As such, the moral complex is absolute. God says what is right and what is wrong - what is Good and what is Evil, and this is immutable and unchanging.
However, the so-called absolute moral code has changed since the time of Moses. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were forbidden to work on the Sabbath, under pain of being stoned to death. We no longer believe that that is an absolute requirement. They were prohibited from eating shellfish, or from trimming their beards. They were required to be circumcised - as a moral requirement, not a practical or a legal one. Circumcision represented the Hebrew's covenant with God. It also, of course, had a practical consideration (you don't want to get sand in there) but that was not the reason Hebrews were circumcised. They were circumcised as a moral command.
This brings us to the difference between a moral command and a moral prohibition. In the former, you do something because you believe that it is right. In the latter, you don't do something because you believe that it is wrong.
2. Different religions have different morals
Today, it appears that moral prohibitions are more important than moral commands. Don't kill, don't steal, don't abort a pregnancy, don't wear a hat in church, etcetera. However, this is only from our point of view, and in fact it is erroneous.
Islamic fundamentalists have a moral command to kill the unbelievers. This is a command that was given to them by God - a covenant. They fully and completely believe that they are doing God's work by detonating bombs in Jerusalem restaurants.
Charles Manson (as far as can be told) believed that he had a moral command to bring about the apocalypse.
I'm going to exclude Hitler and the Nazis from the discussion for the moment, since it is pretty clear that Hitler's path was a social one, rather than a religious one. My main point is that different religions have different moral complexes (different social philosophies have different moral complexes as well, but I'll leave that can of worms closed for the moment).
Every religion believes that its moral complex is absolute. Every religion believes that its moral complex is the one and only code that has been handed to humankind by God (or Krishna or Buddha or Confucius or whatever). This is why I say that morals are relative. The only argument that can be made against this statement is "but they're wrong and we're right", which is not only presumptuous, but also incredibly arrogant.
In most industrialised first-world countries (such as the USA, UK and Australia), our civil laws are ultimately based on a religious moral complex - that of Christianity. Other countries (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran) are based on an Islamic moral complex. Up until the last hundred years, China's civil law was based on Confucianism (which I will - somewhat erroneously - class as a religion for the purposes of the discussion). In virtually all cases, civil law equates to religious moral complex.
3. What does this mean?
The common conception of moral relativism is that since morals are relative, you should be able to do what you like with no fear of consequences. This is false.
A moral relativist recognises that the consequences of one's actions are social, not spiritual. If I kill my neighbour and steal all his stuff, no matter how "right" or "wrong" it feels to me, I will be caught by the police and jailed. This means that we are not free to do as we wish, and as a result, we do not wish to do those things that have severe consequences.
Relativism is not an absence of morals, it is a recognition of the source of morals - not God or Confucius, but society.
In Australia, as I mentioned, civil law derives from the Judeo-Christian moral structure. But it is also separated from it. Why the Judeo-Christian? For two reasons: First, it was the dominant structure when our civil law was formed, at the time of Federation in 1801. The USA has a similar history - with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence drawing strongly from the Judeo-Christian moral complex. The second reason is that the Judeo-Christian moral complex makes for a stable society.
The American Civil War of 1861–1865 was the last time different morals came into major conflict in that country. The morals of the Union triumphed over the morals of the Confederation, and slavery was abolished (how's that for a 10-second summary of one of the most complex conflicts of the last three centuries?). Since the end of the Civil War, there has been no instance where the difference in morals has erupted into open war. Since then, pro-life activists notwithstanding, the US has been more or less stable with respect to its morals (and slavery is now considered immoral). But there are still differences.
Some states do not believe that it is appropriate to execute criminals. Some states do. Take the recent trial of Zacarias Moussaoui - the only person to be tried in the US over the September 11 terrorist attacks. He was eligible for the death penalty under US law. Should he have received it? I'm not going to answer that question, because my morals are not what I want to talk about.
Judeo-Christian morals have emerged out of a pseudo-Darwinian process. Our current moral structure has survived longer (with modifications) than all others. That is purely and simply because it works. Societies based on the Judeo-Christian moral structure are more stable than others, which have gradually disintegrated and vanished. When considering morals, it is enlightening to examine some of those moral structures that have not survived this quasi-evolutionary process.
4. Examples
In feudal Japan, the samurai class had the right to execute those who offended them. They had a duty to obey their lord in all things, up to and including death. If they disgraced their lord, they had a duty - a moral obligation - to extirpate their transgression by committing suicide. Peasants had a moral duty to support their lord by farming rice (which was also used as currency). The lord had a moral duty to protect his lands and his people from invaders - but the individuals under his aegis were ultimately expendable.
This is a very different moral complex than the one now in place in Japan. Although some aspects of honour and face have survived, the samurai class has disappeared, and along with it the casual attitude to individual death. The Meiji Restoration and the Japanese defeat in World War II primarily contributed to this change in moral structure. Since then, Japan has grown to be one of the world's major economic powers, under the stable Judeo-Christian moral complex.
My favourite example of relative morals is the pre-Christian religion of Fiji. Under this religion, people had a moral obligation to cook and eat their enemies. This was not simple savagery - it was an aspect of their religion. By eating an enemy, you denied them entry to the afterlife. Hence, it was a moral duty - a sacrament.
The Old Religion was finally exterminated with the conversion of the King Cakobau in the mid-19th century, and I think that today most of us (including me) would feel that this was a good thing. The Old Religion was not a stable strategy for a civilisation, as evidenced by the fact that before the Christian missionaries arrived, Fiji was a melange of warring petty kingdoms with no structure or history that we would recognise. Hence, although they survived, they did not thrive. Today, although there is a huge number of different Christian, Moslem and Hindu sects represented in the population, they have a "civilised", progressive government and economy, thanks to the Judeo-Christian moral complex.
5. Conclusion
A moral structure is determined by society and its religion, and not by any absolute imposition from outside of society. Every religion claims that it has the correct moral structure, because it is the correct religion, and all the others are wrong, misguided or mistaken. This is true of the Catholic, the Sunni, the Hindu, and the Wicca. It is a defining feature of modern religions that they are all mutually exclusive. Followers of each religion will say that their morals have been given to them by their God, Gods, prophets, or divine revelation.
The conception of "absolute" morals is therefore intimately tied to the conception of "absolute" religion - the belief that one's own religion is the only true religion, and all other religions (and moral complexes) are therefore inferior. This is unsupportable except by blind faith, and it has been the cause of crusades, jihads, pogroms and inquisitions.
Because different nations and societies undergo a Darwin-esque pseudoevolution by competing with one another, those that have prospered in the modern world have emerged the strongest, with the foundations and structures that have helped them to overcome their enemies, build their economies, and create the levels of nationalism and patriotism that define their citizens. It so happens that the modern Judeo-Christian moral complex is fully compatible with these foundations and structures. This is not a coincidence.
In modern times, most religions' moral complexes will generally agree with each other on most points, which may give the illusion that despite differences, they all come from a common source. This is almost true. Currently successful moral complexes are those that have survived the gauntlet of war, economic and social pressure. Since the influences are similar, it is logical that the results are similar. The pressure to change comes from below, not from above.
It should be noted however, how much this surviving moral complex has changed since its inception. Judeo-Christian morals have in their history encouraged slavery, brutality, subjugation of women, crusades, witch-burning, persecution, genocide, torture, murder and a host of other things that today we would consider morally wrong.
It is good for all of us that morals change with society over time. As the society gets stronger through adversity, so does the moral complex. We are the latest incarnation of this trial-by-fire, and after hundreds of years, we appear to be finally getting it right.
