Kevin's Watch

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote words to the effect that "The line between Good and Evil passes through every human heart". By this I think he meant that the inherent ability to know what is good or bad (without limits or impositions by society, culture etc - ie just to know) is what makes us human and raises us above the animal. This is why no animal can ever be considered 'Guilty' of a transgression. Nature, even red in tooth and claw, has no guilt because it has no malice and does not have the knowledge of good and ill within it. It is mans burden to have to shoulder guilt for his actions because (unless ill or otherwise reduced) he is responsible for them - he has that line, that knowledge to judge between Good and Evil, running through his heart.

A friend of mine is a pretty lady, now in her fifties, who for some reason just never settled with a partner long term. She has had a few relationships that have grumbled on for a while and then died, but mostly she has had affairs with married men. She has left no small number of relationships in tatters in the wake of her activities, some even with children involved. I have remonstrated with her about the morality of what she has done a couple of times but she is unrepentant. In her view if a man is going to wander he will wander, and it makes little difference as to whether it is with her or someone else. In fact she says, she has probably done the couple a favour in that their relationship will either survive the stonger for her activities, or will end the quicker allowing both parties to get on with the job of finding partners who will not cheat on them at the first opportunity. Now these are sound arguments - but of course they cover up the truth. My friend has these affairs because *she wants to* and would the world be truly so much the worse if we all behaved this way. (NB I think it would!)

Now to move on to a different situation - I mentioned above that this post has stemmed from a book I've been reading (The Immortalization Commission by John Gray) and in the course of the book Gray gives a truly chilling account of the 'Death Machine' employed in soviet Russia to murder tens of millions of people often guilty of no more crime than being chosen to fill a given quota of executions. This was state terror and murder, institutionalised to a precident never before witnessed even by the Nazi killing machine (in the Nazi case at least you had usually to be 'guilty' of being something, be it Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual etc - in the Soviet system killing quotas were met on occasion by random selection from a telephone directory!). Lenin said "Kill the guilty, but kill the innocent too. Only this way will the requisite fear be engendered to impress the masses...". The goal of this exercise in mass annhialation was nothing less than the re-making of the human into the perfect citzen superman. Without moral or ethical constaint this russian form of the Ubermensch would carry the world forward into the next phase of human development and it was perfecly accepted (and acceptable) that millions would have to die in his creation. There was no place for morals in this story. there was no place for God nor for afterlife. Neither for guilt nor regret. This was the society where the strong took and the weak paid the price.

How do we not repeat this again and again in the absence of 'paying the piper'?

peter wrote: How do we not repeat this again and again in the absence of 'paying the piper'?

Not to ignore the rest of your post, but to bring it together...How do we not repeat it again and again in the presence of paying the piper? By which I mean the purely ideological peeps on the opposite side from your example, those for whom morality/ethics are the sole matter of importance, are historically just as guilty of atrocities [and for the ordinary joe minor sinful habits].

And in a more limited arena, does the threat of punishment really work? It's fairly clear that it is useful in some areas for children appropriately applied...but it tends to become less effective as peeps mature and learn.
And, for instance, look at U.S. death penalty, violent crime rates. Historically, states with the death penalty have had higher murder rates than those without.
And over the last few decades, murder rates have been declining even though the chances of even receiving a death sentence, let alone having it carried out, have been dropping as well.

And, fundamentally, I just think that any system based on fear of punishment is irrational, and unethical in itself. [which obviously doesn't mean it is ineffective...it is doomed, however, one way or another, eventually].

From learning from history. We don't even need to resort to emotional tags like 'repugnant', 'unconscionable', 'cruel', & etc. All we need to do is look at the past and see such actions never work. They always lead to the collapse of society, or at least a change of government. If the Russians had read up on Western history, they would realize the chaos such thinking caused with the Roman Empire. But, they couldn't be bothered with such lessons... they knew better, and we see where that got them. Their society collapsed, all by itself.

Ian C. Esslemont wrote:When you do not recognize the wrongs of the past, the future takes it revenge.

There is no need for gods or a lack of gods to commit these atrocities. How many men, women, children, animals did Jacob allegedly kill indiscriminately because he felt he was following the orders of God? (As the allegedly implies, I think that whole part of the Bible is fiction, but keep in mind, this is still the sort of actions that a people celebrated that had a god at the center of its morals. The mere presence of ANY god will not deter some one from doing what they want to do. As another example, do you think that the Klan in the South who lynched black people didn't worship and praise Jesus every Sunday? It does not matter that they 'aren't true Christians', that theology was still used/perverted/whatever helps you sleep at night* to propagate and justify racism.)


*This option is only if we happen to have someone who thinks anything that is related to Christianity is good and true or some crap like that. It is not meant to insinuate that Christianity is, by default, evil nor that you should be ashamed of yourself if you practice. I now return you to your normal posting schedule

In its simplest form the idea of 'carrot and stick' is so easily percieved, understood and deeply rooted in our being that it pervades almost every aspect of our lives without us even being aware of it. There is a quotation along the lines that 'Nobody ever does anything they don't want to do' (I forget by whom) and irrational as it seems given a bit of thought it probably turns out to be true. I don't want to go to the dentist, but I don't want my teeth to fall out even more so I go to the dentist - effectively I want to go to the dentist more than I want my teeth to fall out. Now for our everyday actions of this and that, carried out without any great thought, the vast bulk are carrot and stick motivated and I do them because I *want* the carrot not the stick. I work for the carrot and for fear of the penalties imposed by not working. I obey traffic laws for the carrots of arriving home safetly and not having to live with having killed anybody and to avoid the stick of loosing my licence and having to bear the societal and guilt cost of the stick. I am faithfull to my wife for the carrots of not having to live with the guilt of betraying her and retaining the pleasure of continuance of the loving relationship I am lucky enough to find myself in, not because I never see another woman that I would like to make love to. Reward and punishment so saurates all levels of our existence that we move through it without the barest thought of it's presence. But what if it were removed. Now as I say the sheer simplicity of the idea is what makes it universally apreciated and so effective. Of course there are break downs in it's effectiveness but as a general enforcer of moral behavior in the mass of society I think it is probably without equal. The example of Soviet Russia is I think an effectve one because of its sheer scale. It is not parochial but an illustration of the problem writ large across a whole society when the fundamental 'stick' of knowing that you will have to pay at some point for you transgressions even if you appear to have slipped through the net in this life, is removed.

Strangely enough I think the answer (or at least some comfort) to this problem is given in the Solzhenitsyn quote given earlier " The line between Good and Evil runs through every human heart." Does this not tell us that we need have no fear, because even in the absence of the coercive impulse of an afterlife on our behavior *we know* what it is to be moral beings. And we know what it is to live well. After all, awful as it was even the Soviet experiment failed and relatively quickly in historical terms. Perhaps there is cause for hope after all.........

But peter, none of the "punishments" you cite involve, or require, divine intervention. They are all simply unpleasant consequences of certain choices. Your teeth are gonna fall out if you don't see the dentist, regardless of whether God hardwires in morality.

It's quite a leap from "I don't cheat on my wife because I don't want to lose her and/or feel guilty" to "morality is handed down to us by God" -- which, if I recall correctly, was the premise with which you started this thread.

I agree with peter that there is a problem with morality in the absence of God but not on the grounds that societies based on a divinity are more moral. My view is based on the core problem that I see in secular societies.

Referencing Weber again, the main difficulty I see is related to his concepts of 'rationalisation' and 'disenchantment'.

... [R]ationalisation, Weber understood... as the opposite of understanding... reality through mystery and magic (disenchantment).

The way I see it is that even if secular societies are significantly more moral and stable there is an inevitable dehumanisation of society and a consequent growing sense that society is 'soulless'. Creeping rationalisation inexhorably colonises human intimacy and we get a feeling that we are being turned into zombies. (Apologies for the heightened rhetoric, though this is an SRD forum after all )

What a divinity or a belief in a supernatural element to our humanity does is 'enchant' our understanding of reality. That 'enchantment', IMO, lifts us out of the mundane aspects of life and gives a 'numinosity' to our existence. When it is embraced in an open way (rather than as a dogmatic religion) the experience of 'enchantment' can lend a priceless quality to each human life. This sense that each human life is equally uniquely valuable can have a profound effect on selfishness and ego-centrism.

In contrast, the bare facts of our current existence shows us that human life is very cheap indeed when viewed from say an economic/political perspective (as the examples earlier in the thread have shown). In the face of such a reality the 'look after number one philosophy' is easy to argue for and selfishness and ego-centrism actually start to look like the only reasonable (moral?) route to take.

u.

peter wrote:In the absence of an after-life where we reap the rewards of a life well-spent or pay the penalty for living a life of self-interest and gratification of selfish desire how do we escape from the conclusion that the best gameplan is one of 'screw your neighbour - look after number one!'.

We escape that conclusion in a number of ways.

First of all, empathy. You don't need god to feel it. It arises naturally as a consequence of recognizing a common humanity, a shared genetic heritage, the value of life in general, etc. (Being raised by loving parents helps). If the only thing making you be nice to me is some mythical belief in an omnipotent being who can punish/reward you, then I'm incline to say, "Buddy, go frak yourself." That's not sincere. That's not empathy. That's subverting what you really feel for me (emotions apparently ranging from apathy to out-right antipathy) merely because someone infinitely stronger than you makes you "play nice." How insulting. How childish. How fake. You're only being nice to me because someone else makes you??

Secondly, we have laws. We have society. Even if some emotionally-stunted people need an Uber-parent to make them play nice, there's no reason why this Uber-parent must be infinitely powerful. All it needs is to be more powerful than you. Like the government. Like cops. Or like me. If you're not nice to me, I can take care of it myself. You try to screw this neighbor, and you'll find out pretty quickly what a poor strategy that is.

Thirdly, humans intuitively understand the logic of zero-sum Game Theory (even if they've never heard it). We're really good at seeing the benefit of cooperation and collaberation. And we're also quite good at keeping track of "moral debts." You screw with me, I'll remember and be less likely to help you in the future. We don't like freeloaders or cheaters. This dual recognition of benefit in collaberation and cost of "screwing your neighbor" tends to automatically sort us into group behaviors, and group thinking. Are there people on the fringes who violate this logic? Of course. But the entire history of humanity can be viewed as increasing scopes of mutually beneficial relationships, including our economies and our religions.

I'll keep shouting it from the rooftops until someone here listens: every one of you should read Nonzero, by Robert Wright (also author of The Moral Animal).

Wikipedia link

peter wrote:It is not sufficient to say 'we all benefit from leading altruistic and benevolent lives'. Human nature is not like that, nor I am afraid ever will be. The immediate advantages to the immoral self-pursuer in such a world would doom it to failure from the very start.

No, otherwise there would be no humans. We'd have gone extinct. There aren't as many advantages in "immoral self-pursuing" as you'd think ... not as much as there is in cooperation and collaberation. The needs/wants of the Many tend to put a limit on exactly what these "immoral self-pursuers" can do. God doesn't stop criminals. Cops do. My guns do. The risks involved involved in living a parasitic life off of others aren't as great as the rewards of forming mutually beneficial relationships, in which your own effort decreases (in relation to what you must do for yourself) while your rewards multiply.

Think of capitalism. I can't build a car on my own. I can't even start a car company on my own. But I can have this amazing machine by taking part in the system which creates it. Sure, I could steal a car. But then I risk going to jail. God has absolutely nothing to do with these considerations. I find it in my own best interest to make use of the capitalist system to get my own car--a system which is millions of mutually beneficial relationships multiplying individual reward beyond anything these individual people could accomplish on their own.

And yet, morality has little to do with. Each person in a capitalist economy is pursuing his or her own best interest within a non-zerosum system. Our tendency to be selfish is redirected so that our own best interest is seen to exist in collaboration with others.

That's the beauty of non-zerosum logic. The beauty of game theory. We don't have to even talk about morality at all ... morality is just one example, one expression of this intuitive logic humans possess. You don't need morality to give people the "carrot" of being nice to each other. There are many other carrots (and sticks) that can affect human behavior toward collective ends.

peter wrote:It is but a couple of hundred years since 'the Enlightenment' and significantly less since the majority belief in Heaven, Hell and a God passed (in the West at least) into history, yet few would deny that the rise of greed and self-interest are visibly discernable with the passage of generations.

Well, it's hard to see evidence of greed when most of humanity is dirt poor. People are just as greedy and ruled by self-interest as ever. Human nature hasn't changed. What has changed are rising standards of living, longer lifespans, greater levels of education, more leisure time, greater access to resources, more freedom, greater access to information, etc., etc. All because people are following their own self-interest in ways that pool our efforts, magnifying the rewards.

You know what's not on the rise? Witch burnings. Crusades. God telling people to destroy whole cities.

If you think religion makes people behave with more morality than the past, you haven't read Leviticus. I suggest giving it a try.

Wayfriend wrote: Nietzsche said God is dead.

Actually, that was Zarathustra, a character in his book.

Wayfriend wrote: Therefore no one has the authority to dictate morality; therefore make up any morality you want;

True. But it's not random or arbitrary. Look at my signature. He exhorted men to bring their virtue back to the earth, to be true to the earth, to be true to themselves. "Be true" perfectly encapsulates the kind of morality he advocates. He just thinks that moralities based on religious superstition are inauthentic. All moral systems are ultimately made up by people. They are really just a "tablet of one's overcoming." Every society makes a virtue out of what they're good at, their strategy for survival. People who are slaves make a virtue out of submission. People who are conquorers make a virtue out of warfare. And then they trick themselves into believing that their particular society's morality is the One True Morality handed down on stone tablets by god himself. The ultimate inauthentic move in morality is to think yours is the only valid one, because everyone makes up their own morality ... or merely adopts someone else's (who made it up).

Wayfriend wrote: therefore happiness is your only guide to your own made-up morality;

Absolutely not. Can you provide a quote from any book Nietzsche has ever written where you could derive this conclusion? Have you read any of his books? Nietzsche would think you a weak person if your own happiness was your sole guide to your morality. He praised free spirits who allow themselves to experience even negative emotions/experiences, who didn't flinch from the unattractive truths of life, in order to experience life to the fullest.

Wayfriend wrote: therefore you should take whatever you decide you should be able take;

See above.

Wayfriend wrote: therefore strive to be an overman who takes from whomever you want;

See above.

Wayfriend wrote: therefore the master race which rules over the rest; therefore Nazis. So you take away God, you end up with Nazis.

This is a common error people make when they rely upon other people's opinions of Nietzsche--others who don't understand him either--and don't take the time to read him.

I don't believe in God. I clearly like Nietzsche. Does that make me a Nazi? Donaldson explicitly said that the point of the Chronicles has nothing to do with God (see my signature), does that make Covenant Hitler?

Hey! I read The Evolution of God by that Wright fellow! Very good author, and he did use some of his Nonzero ideas while looking at theological evolution with as much respect for one's belief as one can in such a situation (he doesn't argue from a 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist' stand point).

Zarathustra wrote:

Wayfriend wrote: Nietzsche said God is dead.

Actually, that was Zarathustra, a character in his book.

You're both wrong. The New York Times said God is dead. Elton John wouldn't lie about something like that.

I thought I should make someting clear:

Zarathustra wrote:If the only thing making you be nice to me is some mythical belief in an omnipotent being who can punish/reward you, then I'm incline to say, "Buddy, go frak yourself." That's not sincere. That's not empathy. That's subverting what you really feel for me (emotions apparently ranging from apathy to out-right antipathy) merely because someone infinitely stronger than you makes you "play nice." How insulting. How childish. How fake. You're only being nice to me because someone else makes you??

Secondly, we have laws. We have society. Even if some emotionally-stunted people need an Uber-parent to make them play nice, there's no reason why this Uber-parent must be infinitely powerful.

That was a bit of sarcasm with no intended victim, certainly not Peter, despite my typical use of "you" as if I'm addressing someone. I don't actually think people intend to claim that they'd be mean to you if it weren't for god looking over their shoulder. I have more faith in people than this. Yes, I know there are jerks, but many of them would be this way even with god looking over their shoulder. Anyway, I think the argument here is insincere, but I think the person behind the argument is a good person. We just paint ourselves into corners sometimes, with our beliefs. I like to step in the paint and get things messy to point out that it's okay to leave the corner.

Orlion, cool! I'll have to check out that book.

ussusimiel wrote: What a divinity or a belief in a supernatural element to our humanity does is 'enchant' our understanding of reality. That 'enchantment', IMO, lifts us out of the mundane aspects of life and gives a 'numinosity' to our existence. When it is embraced in an open way (rather than as a dogmatic religion) the experience of 'enchantment' can lend a priceless quality to each human life. This sense that each human life is equally uniquely valuable can have a profound effect on selfishness and ego-centrism.

In some ways what I'm about to say is parallel/connected with things Z has said. I'm gonna go with music, cuz I think there are lots peeps here who will relate. I love it. I get wrapped in it. It adds numinosity to my reality. And, taking the open you mention: Others, many many others, are way way better than me...that is numinous, too, very very often moreso. It is enchanting. It doesn't need a divinity...and those things directed in line with a particular divinity tend to corrupt in the same way as if I took the step in either direction of "A is a better musician than me, therefore a superior human." or "B can't carry a tune, therefore is inferior human to me."
Numinosity, enchantment, awe, sacredness, are an opening out of our identity to people/the world [as you suggest]...and yet to me it is much more meaningful if we come to/become capable of that than if we can only be that by submission to something supernatural.

peter wrote:By this I think he meant that the inherent ability to know what is good or bad (without limits or impositions by society, culture etc - ie just to know) is what makes us human and raises us above the animal.

That ability is not inherent, it's learned. Not necessarily taught, but learned in the normal process of socialisation.

--A

No offence taken Z, I promise - I think we covered that one once before.

Can I just clarify one point here Guys. I tend to often take the part of the 'believer' in our discussions not because I'm a devout fellow or a prozeletysing bible-thumper, but more because as a 'namby-pamby mushy-pap weak-tea weedy fence-sitter' (as Ricard Dawkins would describe an agnostic such as myself) I tend to see that side of the argument perhaps less well represented here.

The crisis in ethics I refer to in the posts title arose amongst thinkers in the late 19th century principally in response to Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This pulled man fairly and sqarely 'down' to the level of the rest of the animal kingdom (from his exaulted position as God's special creation) and rammed the inevitability of his extinction (following in the path of all other species past, present and future) squarely down the throat's of the still deeply religious peoples of the day. If man was not God's special creation, if he was doomed to go the way of all other species, to dissapear into oblivion, then what was the purpose of living the moral life of restraint and self-abnegation that the bible etc extolled. From this dilema, which may never have been satifactorily resolved, stemmed the victorian pursuit of 'proof of an afterlife' seen in the form of seances, automatic writing, and occult societies - none of which were the 'parlour games' we tend to view them as now. Their purpose was serious and of great import in respect of the future of humanity. We now know they failed. The afterlife cannot be proven 'scientifically' or otherwise. So now, one hundred plus years later the question remains. "Wherefore do we live a life of morality and restriant if by doing so we risk placing ourseves at a disadvantage in relation to our peers".

I wish I knew the answer to this problem. My fear is (but I've always been a natural pesemist ) that the worst case scenario may be actualising - ie that we are becoming more amoral and self centered with the passage of time (this was reported in the UK national press only a week or so ago) Of course it's not enough to say "OK - I'll be good and kind, but only because I'll be punished by God/my peers/the afterlife/etc if I am not. There have to be better reasons for altruism than that - but what are they? If we view ethical behavior as a 'winning formula' in a zero-sum balance sheet are we still not in the arena of a self-interested motivation - and one that we could abandon just as well as keep if the motivation switched to another direction. Indeed is this moraly any better than the position of 'I'll be good because I'll go to hell if I aint"

I'm not finding this thing simple at all........

Well, you now raise the question of whether any behaviour or action can be truly altruistic or not.

It could be argued that the self-gratification felt from an altruistic act actually makes it selfish...

As for better reasons, I'm not sure. There are certainly other reasons though. Including, but not limited to, "because it makes me feel good" and "because it felt right" and "because I felt guilty" and "because we should be good to each other."

Why are you good to your fellow man?

--A

peter wrote:I'm not finding this thing simple at all........

I find it very simiple. I don't believe in an afterlife, but I don't act against others out of self-interest. I don't feel good when I do, so I don't. Others don't have that "problem".

But I'm not altruistic. Not very often, anyway. Again, there are ways of life and behavior between altruism and "at the expense of others".

peter wrote:In her view if a man is going to wander he will wander, and it makes little difference as to whether it is with her or someone else. In fact she says, she has probably done the couple a favour in that their relationship will either survive the stonger for her activities, or will end the quicker allowing both parties to get on with the job of finding partners who will not cheat on them at the first opportunity. Now these are sound arguments - but of course they cover up the truth.

Actually, they just appear to be sound arguments on the surface.

It sounds like you recognize "something is wrong" because they reek of blame-the-other-guy self-justification - and that is often enough to discard their truth value and throw 'em in the trash heap.

But they aren't actually sound arguments in themselves AT ALL.
More importantly, their assumptions are from a view of men that is deeply cynical and mythical.
Even if someone successfully convinced her of the logical fallacy and self-justification, what's that going to do about the gaping hole she's bleeding out of?

Avatar wrote: Why are you good to your fellow man?

--A

To see what I can use them for my own gain later on. Isn't that why anybody interacts with anybody else?

Alas I can't say for sure that I am good to my fellow man. I don't think I'm particularly bad to him, and if the need arises I am probably more likely to help someone than not (as long as I am not too put out by it) - but good? no I don't think so.

Strangely enough, I think my worst 'crime' against my fellow man (and indeed myself) is the one I laughingly refer to above - my pessimism. Karl Popper says, and I quote

"The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say 'It is our duty to remain optimists', this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty not to prophesy evil, but rather to fight for a better world."

Thus how much more likely do I myself make this Hobbsian world by my own hand in it's creation. This seems like a lesson well learned to me.

peter wrote:Alas I can't say for sure that I am good to my fellow man. I don't think I'm particularly bad to him, and if the need arises I am probably more likely to help someone than not (as long as I am not too put out by it) - but good? no I don't think so.

Are you saying you're not good because you don't put each other person in the world before yourself?

Avatar wrote:Well, you now raise the question of whether any behaviour or action can be truly altruistic or not.

This is an interesting point and one that I have come to hold the following view: you should never engage in a good act against your will. The logic of this is that the result is always a loss (Zarathustra will love me for this ). Whatever benefit accrues from the good action is outweighed by the inevitable resentment that is felt. We are back again to the idea of authenticity. It is always better to act authentically, and not do something you don't really want to do, than it is to do something good that goes against your true feelings.

I'll give you a simple example from my own life: people on the street sometimes ask me for money and I give it to them, but not always. I give when my heart is open and I don't give when I feel ungenerous. In the past I used to feel guilty when I refused someone because I didn't want to acknowledge the ungenerous part of myself. My idealised self-image demanded that I could only see myself as a generous person. Over the years I have come to recognise that I feel generous sometimes and at othertimes I don't. I now have a more authentic image of myself and I no longer feel useless guilt.

I believe that no action can ever be truly altruistic, we are always motivated by some payoff that we receive. The authentic position to take is to accept this and deal with the consequences this has for how we see ourselves.

peter wrote:Karl Popper says, and I quote

"The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say 'It is our duty to remain optimists', this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty not to prophesy evil, but rather to fight for a better world."

I like this a lot. I always wonder at my own optimism and it is nice to hear it echoed by someone else. I remain steadfastly optimistic for humanity (in the face of the horrors that occur daily ) because I am fairly certain that we have only barely touched the surface of our potential. Yes, it is likely that when we tap more of our potential new horrors will be perpetrated, but it will also help us clearly see how we are integrated with existence, rather than separate from it as those who are more pessimistic and nihilistic believe.

u.