Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on July 18, 2011 at 5:34pm

I'm reading a book called "Darwinian Conservatism" by Larry Arnhart (edited by Kenneth Blanchard) right now.  I'm really enjoying it as well.  In it, Dr. Arnhart discusses why conservative Christians should embrace Darwinism because it bolsters their support of conservative economic and social principles as being in line with Darwinian processes, such as natural selection, etc.  He goes into more details and parallels than appear here.

Also, the book contains a chapter on The Moral Sense.  In it, he sites Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" to some of Darwin's work along these lines (Darwin's interests and points of discussion about the search for an innate biological sense for morality, etc.) on up to contemporary authors with similar themes but furthered.

My personal opinion:  Human beings have a common capacity to discern, if not readily intuit, a universal moral character.  This isn't as strict a statement as an absolute; hence, it is compatible with cultural relativism (the descriptive theory that there are differences from one culture to another).  However, this statement is in great disagreement with moral relativism (the normative theory that different cultures have different morals and no one from any group can judge another group's morals, because they are all relative, (i.e. there is no objective standard).  Moral relativism (or also called ethical relativism, is utterly flawed; it's anything but moral, see The Story of Omelas).  Moreover, this statement doesn't say that everyone is born all knowing of what is right and wrong, but rather we do have a common capacity to learn about what is universally right and wrong among human beings.  This is a claim that an objective morality exists.  This idea is embodied by what is called moral realism.  Furthermore, human beings have can intuit a universal moral character and will arrive at it over time and, of course, through much trial and error.  There is more to say here about moral realism, objectivity vs. subjectivity, and the abuse solipsism gets (e.g. "how do you know you really can know anything at all?".)  Bottom line, you don't need to be inside your refrigerator that's across from you on the other side of your kitchen, to "know" it exists.  The universe is "knowable" by the human intellect.  Human beings can intuit and discern reality, the universe in and around themselves.  In addition, solipsism simply doubts (calls into question) the precision and accuracy of our senses, but solipsism does not prove or disprove this precision and accuracy.  One can cast doubt about solipsism via solipsism itself.    

There's something to say about Ayn Rand's "Objectivity" too.  That's all I've got for now.

Permalink Reply by James Healey on July 18, 2011 at 10:20pm

I wrote about this as a Facebook note a little while back. Here is an excerpt from it:

 

If morality has to be objective, it has to be real, which means that it has to be based on something that makes up reality. That thing is life, by which man experiences reality and defines the concepts that describe reality. That which sustains and advances life is moral and anything less than ideal sustainability and advancement of life is immoral to various degrees. Man's moral code is defended through the use of reason, which is the basis of man's ability to recognize morality. So, whenever you hear someone argue for God-given rights, correct them. Rights aren't given. That implies they can be taken away. They are an inseparable part of life. Rights are human rights.

 

I am a follower of Rand and I do think that selfishness is essentially the only virtue and every other virtue is a corollary of selfishness. Now, I consider selfishness as doing what's best for you, which means doing which gives you the most sense of accomplishment, which means not cheating yourself by cheating out others through unlawful force. I do not consider selfishness as doing what you want necessarily, because what you want and what's best for you can be different things.

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on October 3, 2011 at 6:35pm

To start with, off the top of my head, I'd aim for relative, subjective...If I was starving, I'd steal food, but otherwise theft of any kind is wrong.  But lately, I've gotta wonder if stealing from a thief or lying to a liar or bullying a bully is wrong.  Idealism is necessary, but we must play the cards we are dealt, not those we wish we were dealt or the way we wish we could play them without any harm coming to ourselves. Living up to our OWN morality/ideals is often very costly.  I get tired of losing or trading gain for idealism.

I know there is morality in the animal kingdom, but what seems to be a animal's morality (kindness), may actually be a selfish (I help you, you help me).

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on October 4, 2011 at 1:07pm

James Healey, well said. I like it.  My former post was made before I read what you and Chris wrote.  What I meant to say was a fairly emotional take on morality (forgive me, I,too, love Objectivism).  I constantly struggle with the choice of being idealistic/moral/having personal integrity and the opposite, doing what will cause me easy gain/popularity/ease-with-others.  In practice, living true to one's own beliefs (not lying, not ignoring an ugly situation, not allowing abuse/insult) can often seem to work AGAINST the selfish need for more money or social support.  No man is an island, but it can often feel like one is when trying to like with personal integrity.  I've heard radio talk show hosts complain that those who DON'T try to improve themselves are the first to criticize those who do, pointing out the many ways they don't live up to their own ideals.  So one can seem to be at war with one's self AND with others who will judge.                          Ayn Rand's idealism is often just that...IDEALISM.  It is VERY hard to live out and therefore can be unrealistic in some cases.  I believe, though, the depression and vice are often the results of NOT living up to one's own morality.  We can hide from others, but not from ourselves.  If we DO try to hide, it is by the business of substance abuse and vice/addictions.

Permalink Reply by Jim Rogers on November 3, 2011 at 12:56pm

This is one of my favorite topics.

Morals and ethics are not derived from theism, just as human rights are not derived from theism.

The world toiled for eons post ten commandments, post crucifixion in a dark unnatural hole.

The rights of man are the product of centuries of human thought, brought to fruition during the post-renaissance enlightenment by hundreds of people cultivating the notion of free will, a social contract and separation from religious overseers.

(And, let's face it, Moses wasn't chiseling down instructions for 40 days, he was trying to hold his people together. And desperately making the rules up for a social contract as fast as he could.)

Even now, leftists are trying to re-write the rights of man into being a push toward collective rights rather than individual. Whereas the rights of man are truly instead a series of individual, regulatory, positive leading notions for a better society of humans. Was some of the morality in the rights of man augmented by Jesus or Moses? In the sense of human experience, yes. Was it God's idea? There is no evidence for that as there is none for God at all.