Difference between revisions of "Morality"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "Morality": There was nothing prudent about Sid's edit. Copying is permitted, and the article is at least informative now. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(→‎Work ethic)
 
(96 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
It is necessary at the outset to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.  
+
[[File:Morality.gif|right|300px]]
 +
'''Morality''' consists of right and wrong in one's personal conduct.  Various forms of [[atheism]] and [[libertarianism]] can mislead someone into ignoring the importance of morality in guiding him to a productive life.
  
−
This ideal governing our free actions is common to the human race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics [[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05556a.htm]] , there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life. L. T. Hobhouse has well said:
+
== Morality versus law ==
−
<blockquote>
+
−
''"The comparative study of ethics, which is apt in its earlier stages to impress the student with a bewildering sense of the diversity of moral judgments, ends rather by impressing them with a more fundamental and far-reaching uniformity. Through the greatest extent of time and space over which we have records, we find a recurrence of the common features of ordinary morality, which to my mind at least is not less impressive than the variations which also appear".'' [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911hobhouse.html]
+
−
</blockquote>
+
  
−
[[Image:morality.gif|thumb|]]
+
Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
−
Thomas E. Brewton wrote in ''Moral Models from Mainstream Media'' <blockquote>
+
Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that law is not based on morality.
−
"Many secular writers and scholars say a clear and decent moral philosophy may be and has been developed without recourse to mysticism, as religion is.  There is no way to prove, objectively, that any religion is truer than any other.  On the other hand, basing a moral philosophy on duty, loyalty, and “women and children first” can produce, and has produced, a set of principles for living a just and proper life that does not require a belief in a deity or other prop outside of recognition of human fellowship.
+
  
−
It should be noted that the western world's first examples of philosophy, in the Greek city states, did in fact arise out of their religious beliefs. Both Plato and Aristotle acknowledged a single Divine source as the origin of the cosmos and, ipso facto, the origin of being or existence itself. Plato specifically believed in the immortality of the human soul, not as a matter of mysticism, but as developed in philosophical logic. This appears most clearly in his dialog, the "Phaedo," [[http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html]] in which Socrates's sorrowful friends visit him in prison, just as he is about to drink the hemlock poison.  He comforts them with the certainty that his soul is about to pass over into a new realm.
+
One commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town center after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centen after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.  
  
−
One of the charges upon which he was condemned to death by the Athenian Assembly was leading the youth astray from the many, syncretistic gods brought into cosmopolitan Athens via the city's vast foreign trade.  Plato, using the voice of Socrates, argued that there is only a single Divinity, and that Divinity is the source of moral understanding.
+
Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
 +
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
 +
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.
  
−
The whole of Plato's "Republic" is aimed at the concept that a just society must begin with this moral understanding and rest upon the morality of its rulers.  Roughly 400 years earlier the Old Testament prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah had repeatedly admonished the people of both kingdoms of Israel with the same message.
+
==Morality based on theistic religion==
  
−
Secularists start with the assumption that concepts such as duty, loyalty, and “women and children first” already exist as the foundation blocks for constructing a set of moral principles that will be independent of a belief in a deity.  But, where did they come from? Again, in historical fact, those basic concepts – duty, loyalty, and “women and children first” – all arose under political regimes rooted in religious beliefs.  It was in those codes that the earliest known statements of such basic principles occurred.
+
''See also:'' [[Religion and morality]]
  
−
Every code of law in the western world, such as Hammurabi's Code [[http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM]] from around 1770 BC, has predicated the official state god as its source of legitimacy.  Around 1500 BC, Moses in the same way transmitted the Ten Commandments from God to the Israelite people. In every case the formulaic structure is the same.  The ruler or spiritual leader rules by the power and grace of God, and the ruler's law code is always seen as bringing God's moral justice to his people.  Why should this be uniformly the case? Eric Voegelin and  Friedrich Hayek provide an understanding.
+
Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>
  
−
Eric Voegelin, covers this question in magisterial fashion in "Israel and Revelation," one of the five volumes in his "Order and History." Dr. Voegelin notes that religion and morality are not "things" or "objects" that a single person, or a committee of intellectuals, sat down and conjured up during a conference meeting. He found it necessary to make this reality clear, in distinction to the modern-day, liberal-socialist view that societies and their political structure are simply "on the spot" creations of the minds of morally relativistic human intellectuals.
+
According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
 +
Janine M. Ramsey:
 +
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God.  These are not [[Subjectivism|subjective]] opinions invented and written down by man.  Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}
  
−
That misconception, for example, is the root of the disastrous savagery produced by the French Revolutionary intellectuals' "ideas" about a perfect socialistic government.  As present-day French intellectual André Maurois observed in his "A History of France," the French intellectuals, unlike their English and American contemporaries, had never had so much as five minutes actual experience in self-government.  In contrast, the English and their American political heirs had struggled for centuries to hammer out their unwritten constitution governing the rights and privileges of individuals under law, against the crown.  Those political understandings were bound up in their religious understandings of the duty of sovereigns and subjects to God.  No English king, or Continental sovereign, could claim legitimacy without the blessings of the Christian church.
+
One standard objection to this view is the [[Euthyphro]] dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because [[Divine command theory|the Gods love (approve of, command) it]], or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right.  If the former, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims.  If the latter, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them.  Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.
  
−
That is why Europe's first secular and imperialist ruler Napoleon ostentatiously snatched the crown from the hands of the the bishop and placed it himself upon his head at the coronation ceremony.  Symbolically, this represented liberals' hubristic presumption that they alone are the rulers of the universe and that they need no help from God, socialistic, individual hubris that presumes to the capacity to make up its own rules of morality is a prescription for anarchic demise."[http://www.republicanvoices.org/october_2005_newsletter.html][[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/11/01/moral-models-from-mainstream-media/]]
+
== Moral intelligence ==
−
</blockquote>
+
  
 +
''See also:'' [[Moral intelligence]] and [[Forgiveness]] and [[Empathy]]
  
−
== Morality and the Law ==
+
According to the National Institutes of Health: [[Moral intelligence]] (MI) "can be referred to as human's capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to apply moral principles to humans' intentions, goals, beliefs, values, and actions."<ref>[Investigation of moral intelligence’s predictive components in students of Shahid Beheshti university of medical sciences (SBMU)], ''Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine''. 2020; 13: 13.
 +
Published online 2020 Sep 20. doi: 10.18502/jmehm.v13i13.4389</ref>
  
−
Morality can be distinguished from law or from justice according to the way in which the latter is publicly enforced and sanctioned through the power of the state, while the former is regarded as a private matter where wrongs are to the moral discredit of a person but not such as to allow legal recourse for those wronged. Complaints are often made about the absence of such a distinction, that virtue or morality cannot be or ought not be legislated, or about its presence, that the decline of private morality calls for a public and legal remedy. The distinction is real enough, and its presence reveals another boundary between polynomic domains of value.
+
[[Howard Gardner]], the noted intelligence expert who developed the [[Theory of multiple intelligences|multiple intelligence]] methodology of measuring intelligence suggested that moral intelligence may merit being included in his multiple intelligence model.<ref>[http://infed.org/mobi/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-and-education/ Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education]</ref>
  
−
The ultimate moral evaluation of an action concerns the intention. Many actions innocent in themselves may be immoral because of the motive. That motive may be difficult for other persons to know. It may even be impossible for others to know: thus the emphasis (as in the example cited by Jesus of adultery committed in the heart -- Matthew 5:27) is that morality is morality even if wrongs are known only to the agent (and to God). The moral sanction of religion, therefore, is a much different matter than the moral sanction of law. The right of privacy (and the right against self-incrimination, where a judicial wrong has been committed and the state must prove culpable motive) protects the individual's self-knowledge of motive from the law and the state. Individuals are properly at legal liberty to pursue actions that are not judicial wrongs for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons; and the morality of those actions is a private, personal matter, or a matter of interpersonal judgment on a level of "mere" morality.
+
Keld Jensen wrote in ''Forbes'' magazine that moral intelligence directly follows [[emotional intelligence]] as it deals with "integrity, responsibility, sympathy, and [[forgiveness]]. The way you treat yourself is the way other people will treat you. Keeping commitments, maintaining your integrity, and being honest are crucial to moral intelligence."<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/04/12/intelligence-is-overrated-what-you-really-need-to-succeed/ Intelligence Is Overrated: What You Really Need To Succeed] by Keld Jensen, ''Forbes'', 4/12/2012</ref> See also: [[Empathy]]
 +
== Work ethic ==
 +
[[File:Niall Ferguson.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The [[Harvard University]] historian [[Niall Ferguson]] declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."<ref>[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China] By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012</ref> ]]
 +
''See also:'' [[Work ethic]] and [[Work ethic#Building a strong work ethic|Building a strong work ethic]]
  
−
The absence of a distinction between morality and justice is a kind of moralism. The principle that all moral wrongs should be legally sanctioned as judicial wrongs, erasing the distinction between morality and justice, may be called judicial moralism. Usually this means generalizing the morality of intention into the morality of action rather than the opposite, which would simply evaluate actions as right or wrong, without qualifying the judgment by any consideration of motive or intention: although this does happen in tort law it is called "strict liability," and some legal scholars, including Richard Epstein [[http://www.friesian.com/chicago.htm]], believe all torts should be interpreted according to strict liability. However, strict liability would also make things much easier for prosecutors in criminal cases, and it is now becoming common for laws to be passed that ignore motives and intentions (the mens rea). Thus, "money laundering" laws, which require reporting to the government the transfers of certain amounts of cash or bearer financial instruments, although supposedly written to catch drug dealers and their agents, are typically enforced against innocent people who are either ignorant of such an obscure law or who do not believe their financial privacy in the course of innocent transactions is any of the government's business. But it doesn't matter how innocent the money or the motives are. This trend in criminal law is, of course, tyranny and injustice.  
+
The [[Bible]] has many verses advocating industriousness.<ref>
 +
*[https://www.openbible.info/topics/hard_work Bible versus on working hard], OpenBible.org
 +
*[https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-work/ 20 Bible Verses about Work], BibleStudyTools.org
 +
*[https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible-verses-about-hard-work-85 Bible versus on hard work], Christianity.com
 +
*[https://www.womansday.com/life/g30618770/bible-verses-hard-work/ 15 Bible Verses About Hard Work and Determination], Woman's Day
 +
*[https://christian.net/resources/bible-verses-about-hard-work/ 40 Bible Verses About Hard Work For God], Christian.net</ref> [[Puritan]] society in [[New England]] in the 17th and 18th century exemplified the work ethic.
  
 +
The [[work ethic]] consists of choosing productive work over unproductive activities, in order to improve the condition of oneself, one's family, and society at large.
  
−
== Buddist Morality ==
+
==Morality based on evolution==
 +
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>
  
−
'''The Pancha Shila, or five moral precepts:'''
+
Dr. Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.
−
+
−
1. Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.  
+
  
−
2. Avoid stealing -- taking what is not yours to take.  
+
He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others.<ref>New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>
  
−
3. Avoid sexual irresponsibility, which for monks and nuns means celibacy.  
+
However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
 +
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.
  
−
4. Avoid lying, or any hurtful speech.  
+
Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
 +
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’<br />
 +
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}
  
−
5. Avoid alcohol and drugs which diminish clarity of consciousness.
+
Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle:  Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>
  
−
'''The Paramita-- The Perfections or Virtues -- noble qualities that all should strive to achieve:'''
+
== Morality based on atheism ==
  
−
1.  Generosity (dana)
+
''See also:'' [[Atheism and morality]]
−
2.  Moral discipline (shila)
+
−
3.  Patience and tolerance (kshanti) 
+
−
4.  Energy (virya)
+
−
5.  Meditation (dhyana)
+
−
6.  Wisdom or (full-) consciousness (prajña)
+
−
7.  Skilled methods (upaya)
+
−
8.  Vow or resolution (pranidhana)
+
−
9.  The ten powers or special abilities (dashabala)
+
−
10.  Knowledge (jñana)[http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/buddhamorals.html]
+
  
 +
Lacking a transcendent, objective moral authority (such as the Bible), [[atheism]] relies on subjective sources. The basis of morality for some atheists is their own opinion.
 +
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.<br>
  
−
== Jewish Morality ==
+
'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?<br>
  
−
The lifestyle of the religious Jew is based on certain underly­ing theological assumptions about God and His role in history. Clearly, the belief that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who revealed His Law to Israel at Mt. Sinai, has profound practical implications for the Jew and for all humanity. That man is accountable to God for his deeds and that he is ex­pected to realize a spiritual purpose in his life transform him from a highly developed animal into a transcendental being. Most certainly, then, Judaism does affirm basic faith principles.
+
'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.<br>
  
−
Unlike many other faiths, however, Judaism does not regard these faith convictions as redemptive in and of themselves. Judaism is a mitzvah-oriented faith which insists that one's re­ligious convictions be translated into virtuous deeds. Without the underpinnings of faith, there can be no motivation or ra­tionale to live a life of religious observance.[http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/BJM%252f.aspx]
+
'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?<br>
 +
 
 +
'''R:''' By my feelings.<br>
 +
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>
 +
 
 +
In practice, atheists may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
 +
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
 +
 
 +
Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people. Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
 +
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
 +
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.
 +
 
 +
=== The effects of atheism ===
 +
 
 +
It is contended that in broadly condemning "[[religion]]", atheism frequently focuses on [[Christianity]], which is seldom defined according to its source (the New Testament), and which they often include Hitler in, and which they blame for atrocities such as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].  In addition, when confronted by the fact that the objectively baseless moral authority of atheism allowed atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]] to easily justify  their atrocities (which seemed ''reasonable'' measures to them), they are observed seeking to disassociate the two. Harris attempts to do so by judging such men as "not especially rational", with this perhaps establishing Harris as the authority of what is, and then he proceeds to implicate religion for the evil of their regimes.<ref>Sam Harris, ''An Atheist Manifesto'' Dec 7, 2005</ref> In response it is seen that the authority for the religion at issue at issue (Christianity), is what transcendentally condemns them.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html</ref> (Jn. 10:10; Rm. 9:1-3ff; Gal. 6:10)   
 +
 
 +
It is argued that while atheism did not directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because atheism provides no objective transcendent moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur, while fostering "political religion" due to the tendency to worship mortal men in place of God.
 +
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008.  See also Morris.</ref><ref>[http://www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html Atheism's Body Count]</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
== See also ==
 +
* [[Virtue]]
 +
* [[Ethics]]
 +
* [[Habit]]
 +
* [[Immorality]]
 +
* [[Moral relativism]]
 +
* [[Amoral]]
 +
* [[Essay:Immorality in America]]
 +
* [[Moral degeneration]]
 +
* [[Ten Commandments]]
 +
* [[Values]]
 +
 
 +
== Bibliography ==
 +
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
 +
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11 May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
 +
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24 December 2004 and 2 December 2008.  (Creation Ministries International)
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
−
<references/>
+
{{reflist|2}}
−
Cathrein, Religion und Moral (Freiburg, 1900); Fox, Religion and Morality (New York, 1899); Devas, Key to the World's Progress (London, 1906); Idem, Studies of Family Life (London, 1886); Balfour, Foundations of Belief (London, 1895), Part I, i; Catholic Truth Society's Lectures on the History of Religions (London, 1910);Laws of Justice, Hammurabi; Moral Models from Mainstream Media. By Thomas E. Brewton; Buddhist Morality, Dr. C. George Boeree; Media: Their Structure and Moral and Public Policy Import, by John M. Phelan; Imitating God-the Basis of Jewish Morality, By Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik; Modern Jewish Morality, A Bibliographical Survey, Greenwood Press; Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
+
 
 +
[[Category:Religion]]
 +
[[Category:Christianity]]
 +
[[Category:Catholicism]]
 +
[[Category:Buddhism]]
 +
[[Category:Hinduism]]
 +
[[Category:Virtues]]
 +
[[Category:Morality]]
 +
[[Category:Ethics]]
 +
[[Category:Philosophy]]
 +
[[Category:Sexual Morality]]
 +
[[Category:Non-violence]]
 +
[[Category:Oaths]]

Latest revision as of 12:23, February 11, 2024

Morality.gif

Morality consists of right and wrong in one's personal conduct. Various forms of atheism and libertarianism can mislead someone into ignoring the importance of morality in guiding him to a productive life.

Morality versus law

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that morality is distinct from the law, but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection. Natural Law supporters point to examples such as slavery, which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no inherent connection: and thus say that law is not based on morality.

One commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town center after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centen after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality. Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

Morality based on theistic religion

See also: Religion and morality

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the Ten Commandments or the Code of Hammurabi were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.[1]

According to some theists, only by basing morals on God's standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis. Janine M. Ramsey:

Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.[2]

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the former, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the latter, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

Moral intelligence

See also: Moral intelligence and Forgiveness and Empathy

According to the National Institutes of Health: Moral intelligence (MI) "can be referred to as human's capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to apply moral principles to humans' intentions, goals, beliefs, values, and actions."[3]

Howard Gardner, the noted intelligence expert who developed the multiple intelligence methodology of measuring intelligence suggested that moral intelligence may merit being included in his multiple intelligence model.[4]

Keld Jensen wrote in Forbes magazine that moral intelligence directly follows emotional intelligence as it deals with "integrity, responsibility, sympathy, and forgiveness. The way you treat yourself is the way other people will treat you. Keeping commitments, maintaining your integrity, and being honest are crucial to moral intelligence."[5] See also: Empathy

Work ethic

The Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[6]

See also: Work ethic and Building a strong work ethic

The Bible has many verses advocating industriousness.[7] Puritan society in New England in the 17th and 18th century exemplified the work ethic.

The work ethic consists of choosing productive work over unproductive activities, in order to improve the condition of oneself, one's family, and society at large.

Morality based on evolution

Some biologists argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution. They see social behaviors displayed by some primates as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as rhesus monkeys which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to starve themselves for a considerable time.[8]

Dr. Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both empathy and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others.[9]

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true. The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.[10]

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.[11]

Morality based on atheism

See also: Atheism and morality

Lacking a transcendent, objective moral authority (such as the Bible), atheism relies on subjective sources. The basis of morality for some atheists is their own opinion. Bertrand Russell, for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.[12]

In practice, atheists may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage. Richard Dawkins said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".[13]

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people. Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people. As mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer said in an interview:

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...[14]

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

The effects of atheism

It is contended that in broadly condemning "religion", atheism frequently focuses on Christianity, which is seldom defined according to its source (the New Testament), and which they often include Hitler in, and which they blame for atrocities such as the Inquisition and the Crusades. In addition, when confronted by the fact that the objectively baseless moral authority of atheism allowed atheists such as Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot to easily justify their atrocities (which seemed reasonable measures to them), they are observed seeking to disassociate the two. Harris attempts to do so by judging such men as "not especially rational", with this perhaps establishing Harris as the authority of what is, and then he proceeds to implicate religion for the evil of their regimes.[15] In response it is seen that the authority for the religion at issue at issue (Christianity), is what transcendentally condemns them.[16] (Jn. 10:10; Rm. 9:1-3ff; Gal. 6:10)

It is argued that while atheism did not directly cause these atrocities, because atheism provides no objective transcendent moral boundaries, it allows these atrocities to occur, while fostering "political religion" due to the tendency to worship mortal men in place of God.

...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.[17][18]

See also

Bibliography

References

  1. ↑ The Conservative Voice: "Morality and Political Order" by Thomas Brewton
  2. ↑ Ramsey, 2004
  3. ↑ [Investigation of moral intelligence’s predictive components in students of Shahid Beheshti university of medical sciences (SBMU)], Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2020; 13: 13. Published online 2020 Sep 20. doi: 10.18502/jmehm.v13i13.4389
  4. ↑ Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education
  5. ↑ Intelligence Is Overrated: What You Really Need To Succeed by Keld Jensen, Forbes, 4/12/2012
  6. ↑ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012
  7. ↑
  8. ↑ "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal
  9. ↑ New York Times: "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"
  10. ↑ 'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in Creation 20(3):44, June 1998.
  11. ↑ The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983
  12. ↑ Bertrand Russell: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.
    Frederick Copleston: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?
    R: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.
    C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?
    R: By my feelings.
    (1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)
  13. ↑ The Science Show, ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., National emergency in Australia, 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)
  14. ↑ Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [1]
  15. ↑ Sam Harris, An Atheist Manifesto Dec 7, 2005
  16. ↑ http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html
  17. ↑ Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.
  18. ↑ Atheism's Body Count
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Morality&oldid=2024992"