Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Escape from the Moral Dimension

Ever since Barack Obama said in the Compulsion Forum that there’s a “moral dimension” to abortion, some of us in the Atheosphere have been arguing about morality. Although I hate like hell to get involved in philosophical masturbation (I much prefer the physical kind), I can’t resist an opportunity to piss off some of my fellow atheists. So here, in brief, are some random thoughts about morality, numbered for the convenience of commenters.

  1. For an issue to have a moral dimension, there must be some question of “what’s right?” and “what’s wrong?” Obviously, not all issues have such a dimension. However, people who love judging others can invent moral dilemmas where they don’t exist. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to blindly accept those issues as posing moral questions. Example: whether or not to eat meat is a moral issue for some vegetarians. It isn’t for me, though, no matter how much they protest. I don’t see any rightness or wrongness to argue about. If I engage in a debate about whether or not it’s moral to indulge in a slice of meatloaf, I’m validating the premise that there is a right and a wrong at issue. I’m not willing to make that concession.

  2. The negative version of the Golden Rule — don’t do to anybody else what you wouldn’t want them to do to you — may be evolutionarily hardwired into our brains. Even if it isn’t, it makes rational sense. For me, the Golden Rule means: Don’t harm anyone. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat. Don’t use physical or psychological threats to impose your ideas on others. Don’t lie. But even those most basic moral precepts aren’t accepted as universals. Cultures throughout history, and all over the globe, have found ways to justify violating those simple rules. Some people in the Atheosphere, in fact, have actually defended polticians’ lying as “that’s what you have to do to get elected.” Maybe so, but it’s immoral nonetheless.

  3. Jumping off from the Golden Rule: my idea of morality is avoiding those actions that are immoral. An action that poses a moral problem is either moral (what’s right) or immoral (what’s wrong). One may (and I do) take the position that the morality scale is not a line with gradations of rightness and wrongness. Neutral actions (those that don’t pose moral questions) and right actions are equivalent; we’re not collecting points for an afterlife. In other words, if one is not immoral, one is automatically behaving “morally.”

  4. It follows, therefore, that there’s no such thing as moral “high ground” or “low ground.” Morality is not terrain. Some actions, as I’ve said, are off the map entirely, neither right nor wrong. Other actions seem to be right; they’re conscious decisions not to violate the Golden Rule. Immoral actions are all those things we do or say that are “wrong,” that do break the Golden Rule. Sometimes, immoralities have to be given relative weight: Which one is less “wrong” under the circumstances. That’s why waging war, for instance, is always immoral, but may be less so, under some conditions, than not waging war. So-called white lies are always immoral, but may be less so, under some conditions, than telling the truth.

  5. Freethinkers realize that, humans being the flawed creatures we are, ideas about morality are relative. Each person has to think through his or her own code. That means constantly debating within yourself about which immoralities are less bad than others when two “rules” conflict. Is killing ever an option if it could mean saving others? Is stealing by the government OK if it redistributes wealth to the neediest? Is it all right to force your ideas on others when those ideas might build a better world? For atheists, deciding what is and isn’t immoral is, ultimately — and unfortunately — a personal choice.

  6. Religionists, on the other hand, think that morals are absolute, dictated from on high. They’re things that you should do in addition to things that you shouldn’t. Thus, the onerous positive version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others.... In fact, I’d argue that the religionists’ version of the Golden Rule sees morality through a lens held in the wrong direction. In the version of morality I’ve been writing about, being moral is the natural state of humans; one has to take specific wrong actions to be immoral. In the god-driven version of morality, being immoral is the natural state of humans; one has to take specific right actions to be moral. If you don’t, you’re eternally fucked. But are morals right because a god says they are, or does the god say they are because they’re right? Can you say “Euthyphro”? In reality, of course, the various “holy” books contain so many vague, conflicting, or despicable “morals,” that, again, a workable, humane code comes down to a personal choice. But in the religious version, the godpusher feels justified in butting into others’ lives, telling people what they must do as well as what they mustn’t.

  7. The word “moral” is loaded. When pious zealots use it, they always have their own warped religious teachings in mind. In debating an issue, the rest of us shouldn’t necessarily accept the word “moral” as a synonym for “right” just because someone claims that his or her position is such. Theists are quick to raise bogus moral questions where, often, there shouldn’t be any. One’s private sexual activity, for instance, is an instinct that’s outside the realm of right vs. wrong. It’s not a moral issue unless it involves force, physical or emotional. In that case, the moral dimension grows out of: Don’t harm anyone. That’s why, in my personal code, rape is immoral. Having sex with children is immoral — although I’m not sure I can define the age at which a person is no longer a child. Similarly, a so-called normal person having sex with a mentally handicapped partner may be a subject for moral discussion and examination. Incest between consenting adults, in cases where it may result in childbirth, is scientifically unwise, and, perhaps morally dubious from the potential child’s standpoint, at least in the medical sense; where there’s no threat of pregnancy, I don’t see how morals come into the picture. The stricture against multiple husbands and wives is a societal convenience, but not a moral issue. Gay sex is not a moral issue, whatsoever. And sex between unmarried heterosexuals is, of course, not questionable at all on moral grounds.

  8. Societies codify their sense of morality through laws. Those laws, in democratic countries, are majoritarian. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the “morals” being enforced, or even whether there really are any valid moral arguments involved. Freethinkers should refuse to let woo-ists dictate the terms of the national dialogue.

  9. That’s why abortion — at least in the early stages of the pregnancy — is not a moral issue. In fact, for those of us who think there may indeed be a moral issue once the fetus has attained some level of brain function, or “consciousness,” let’s use two different terms for abortion instead of just one. I hope someone can come up with better terms than I have, but for the sake of this essay, let’s call removal of the fetal cells at the preconscious stage a “procedural pregnopause” or an “amniectomy.” Let’s call a so-called “late-term abortion” a “surgical miscarriage.” I’ll happily grant moral ambiguity to the question of whether or not to have a surgical miscarriage. But for atheists, for whom presupposing a soul is unthinkable, the procedural pregnopause has no moral dimension at all; there’s no right vs. wrong for those of us who don’t give credence to the idea that a magical spiritual spark is lit at conception. The only moral question that exists insofar as a procedural pregnopause: Is it right or wrong to force a woman to have a child? That’s not a moral question at all unless and until theocrats try to use physical or psychological threats to impose their ideas on others.

  10. One last point: Ideas about the evolutionary and historical development of morality may be colored by one’s position on the authoritarian/libertarian scale. For an authoritarian, morality arises from a system that imposes the greatest sense of community. People should be encouraged to act together for the good of the species. For a libertarian like me (please do note the lowercase L) morality arises from a system that imposes the fewest constraints. People should, essentially, be free to do whatever they want unless their actions impinge on the freedom of others.
OK, readers, feel free to weigh in. But remember: There’s no moral dimension to commenting.

16 comments:

Spanish Inquisitor said...

How about 'conceptional cessation'?

CC for short.

PhillyChief said...

1. The mistakes inherent in #1 are thinking you are both at the center of the the universe and that you're inerrantly right. Let's try something you love doing, reframing an argument in another context to see if it holds water...
However, people who love judging others can invent moral dilemmas where they don’t exist. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to blindly accept those issues as posing moral questions. Example: whether or not hunting is an important part of who they are is a moral issue for some. It isn't for me, though, no matter how much they protest, saying such sentiments are "exactly what's wrong with this damn country". I don't see any rightness or wrongness to argue about. If I engage in a debate about whether or not it's moral to exercise one of my Constitutional rights, I’m validating the premise that there is a right and a wrong at issue. I’m not willing to make that concession.
or
Example: whether or not gays can legally marry is a moral issue to some. It isn't for me, though, no matter how much they protest. I don't see any rightness or wrongness to argue about...
or
Example: whether or not we have capital punishment is a moral issue to some. It isn't for me, though, no matter how much they protest. I don't see any rightness or wrongness to argue about...
or
Example: whether or not a parent opts for prayer over medicine is a moral issue to some. It isn't for me...
or
Example: whether or not a parent allows their young daughter to marry into a polygamist relationship is a moral issue to some...

How'd it do?

First, it's incredibly obnoxious to dismiss something as not being a moral issue because it's not a moral issue FOR YOU. Second, it's embarrassingly contradicting to be someone who claims there's no objective morality, that it's a "personal choice", but then, by not explaining why something shouldn't be considered moral or not, essentially is arguing from a position of there being an objective morality by dismissing someone's morality as not being morality.

4. It follows, therefore, that there’s no such thing as moral “high ground” or “low ground.”
If you believe morality is subjective then no, there's no absolute high or low ground, but within your subjective morality certainly you can claim moral high or low ground, a scale of relative morality.
Sometimes, immoralities have to be given relative weight: Which one is less “wrong” under the circumstances.
Ok, you prefer an immoral terrain as opposed to a moral terrain. Semantics. You've just contradicted yourself and proved my point. There is a scale, a terrain if you will, by which we rate the relative heights of actions. Getting back to #1, I see no problem then with placing someone's actions or arguments way down in the valley, but I think it's a mistake to claim they shouldn't even be recognized on the map.

8. Freethinkers should refuse to let woo-ists dictate the terms of the national dialogue.
Yet it's okay for anti-woo-ists to dictate the terms of the national dialogue? Dismissing someone's moral argument by deeming it not a moral argument and therefore not allowing it to be introduced IS dictating the terms of the national dialogue.

9. I’ll happily grant moral ambiguity to the question of...
Well thank you your majesty, the sole arbiter of what is and isn't moral

The Exterminator said...

Philly:

Some good points. So let me see if I can clarify my thinking (or writing).

1. It may be that certain morals are evolutionarily developed and common to all humans. But since morality appears to be subjective, at least for the time being given our state of knowledge, I treat it as such. Everyone decides for himself or herself what morality is. Or, actually a better way of putting that since I'm mainly concerned with immorality: Everyone decides for himself or herself what actions are immoral.

However, each democratic society codifies its most common views on morality into law. Now, obviously, I'd say that all your examples, except for the last, are moral issues. To me. But whether or not they're moral issues, they definitely are legal ones, because our Constitution and our laws, as they exist right now, say they are. So I'd be happy to argue them on legal grounds, and explain why I think they're good or bad policies for the country. In the course of making my argument, I may -- if I'm not careful -- state that I've viewed these issues through a moral lens. But others may not; a person's own particular moral code ought to be irrelevant in governing a nation whose people have a wide range of ideas about morality, except insofar as that moral code influences his or her thinking. In a governmental sense, though, whether you think an issue is a moral one or not, you may be forced to confront it on legal grounds.

For example: I think that Fred Phelps is an immoral, hateful worm. But because of my legal views (and I grant you that many of those views are generated by my interpretation of the negative Golden Rule), I defend his right to say any immoral thing he wants to.

If we agree to judge every single issue as a moral one, we tread in very dangerous territory. It's too easy for people to cloak themselves in their version of morality. In this country, most people would be wearing their damn bible from head to toe. So I say: remove the "moral dimension" from all governmental discourse. I repeat: That's not to say that individuals should not take their moral views into account when discussing "rights." But the bottom line is that the abortion argument is a legal one; the capital punishment argument is a legal one; whether parents should be allowed to opt for prayer instead of medicine is a legal one. All these issues have their moral dimensions -- but so what?

The minute we sanction "morality" as a debatable criterion in making governmental policy, we've created a theocracy.

4. Thinking about moral "high ground" and "low ground" gives the false sense that there are absolutes. But I think you'd agree that high ground and low ground may not be the same on different issues. For instance: in an absolute system, I'd place killing another human being on the lowest ground there is. However, there are instances in which I think killing is justified.

You're right that it's a semantic issue. My big problem with the terms "high ground" and "low ground" is that they're meaningless in discourse. I'm not comfortable with anyone claiming that his or her moral system is superior to anyone else's. That goes for my own, too.

8. I stand by what I said. I never claimed that issues shouldn't be discussed. I merely said that they shouldn't be discussed as having a moral dimension, as if their answers can be found by consulting an omnibenevolent oracle. So I'll repeat what I said: All freethinkers should be extremely vigilant not to allow woo-ists to dictate the terms of the national dialogue.

And I'll repeat this, too: The minute we sanction "morality" as a debatable criterion in making governmental policy, we've created a theocracy.

9. "I'll happily grant ..." is a typical editorial phrase. Don't interpret it in a silly way.

So now I'll ask you a question:
Is morality subjective or objective? If the latter, how do you know? If the former, how can one justify claiming an issue as a moral one?

Collin Williams said...

Why is a politician discussing morality to begin with? There is a reason it is a "choice of the lesser of two evils", because they are both evil and corrupt. Morality! The nerve... Obama is disgusting, they all are.

Collin
www.rejectsociety.com

PhillyChief said...

The minute we sanction "morality" as a debatable criterion in making governmental policy, we've created a theocracy.

So that whole slavery thing was settled calmly as a mere legal issue then and morals had nothing to do with it. That's the logical deduction if your statement is true since we're currently not in a theocracy.

Your assertion could also be interpreted to mean there's no morality without religion, for if including morality leads to theocracy, how else do you connect the dots?

Now for your questions:
I feel morality must be subjective. If objective, then they're ideas that exist independent of existence, and that's absurd. Even those who argue their morals come from a god are caught because they won't be truly objective then but subjective based on the god's opinion and if they try to argue they are objective, then their god is merely a messenger and they're right back to morality being an idea independent of existence.

I can claim an issue is a moral one because I say it is. Having 1000 people tell me the issue isn't moral doesn't make it not moral, nor does my view make it moral. If morals are subjective, a "personal choice" as you claim, then where are we at? Oh look, we have to argue our point, to CONVINCE another to accept our view. How is that different then arguing the interpretation of legal rights? How is that different then creating laws to establish or take away those rights? It's the same fucking thing.

Look at our civil rights. They're not objective either. A bunch of old white guys over 200 years ago decided to establish rights as laws. Of course not everyone got to get rights at first, and some still don't, but that's the whole point of amendments, because despite claiming they're self-evident, it doesn't seem they are (not to mention the fact that if they were, then you wouldn't have to write them down, would you?)

So we debate interpretation of laws, the assignment of rights and what is and isn't a right. We debate the needs for new laws, the changing of old ones and even their eliminations. All of those arguments are subjective, otherwise, if all was clearly objective, then there would be no debate. Morals are no different, so I fail to see why you're making a distinction and I also fail to see how it could even be practical to reply to another's argument with, essentially, "talk to the hand".

The Exterminator said...

So that whole slavery thing was settled calmly as a mere legal issue then and morals had nothing to do with it.
Yep. You and I -- and many others, fortunately -- look at slavery as highly immoral, but the issue was settled legally only by the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. And there's no mention of morality in it at all.

I can claim an issue is a moral one because I say it is. Having 1000 people tell me the issue isn't moral doesn't make it not moral, nor does my view make it moral.
Again, we actually agree. All I've been saying is that we should not inject our own personal codes of morality into the public policy forum. That doesn't mean that you and I, or any of us on in the Atheosphere or in our private lives, can't have a discussion about morality. But it does mean that "morality" is not an issue that should be debatable in a governmental context.

Two things about rights. I don't think rights and morals are the same thing. Also, and more important, I don't think governments grant rights; it's the natural state of humans -- and any animals for that matter -- to have a complete palette of rights. Rights are taken away by governments, sometimes justifiably and sometimes not. I agree with the old saying: my rights stop at your front door.

But concepts of morality and rights are, ultimately, subjective. So we have to use what little reason we can -- not "moral" dimensions -- to argue about them. My way of arguing for a right is, usually, to demonstrate the disaster that might occur if such a right is prohibited.

I think we're completely on the same page here, and I'll bet that our moral codes and our ideas of rights are extremely similar. But I don't want to use the language of morality when talking about the government. It opens the door to a theocracy or some other authoritarian system.

Spanish Inquisitor said...

So that whole slavery thing was settled calmly as a mere legal issue then and morals had nothing to do with it.
Yep. You and I -- and many others, fortunately -- look at slavery as highly immoral, but the issue was settled legally only by the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. And there's no mention of morality in it at all.


So you think that without the moral indignation and arguments of the country behind it, the Thirteenth Amendment would still have been enacted? The sense that slavery was immoral had nothing to do with the legal settlement? Only modern day people with historical insight deem slavery immoral, while the people of the time saw it as simply a legal problem?

Interesting.

The Exterminator said...

SI:
No, I didn't say it wasn't a moral issue for many people at the time. There was plenty of indignation about slavery and arguments against it -- and not all of them were based on morality. But it was settled only through the legal process.

The reason that's a good thing is that there were -- maybe there still are, for all we know -- plenty of people who found (find?) slavery a perfectly moral institution based on biblical precepts.

PhillyChief said...

So to sum up, things aren't moral unless Ex says they are but even so, you can't write laws with morality written in them despite them being prompted by moral arguments, and then once that law is enacted, the issue it addresses won't be a moral issue anymore because it was settled legally.

ZING!

You should create puzzle books.

The Exterminator said...

No, Philly, not an adequate summing up at all.

To sum up: (1) A political issue should not be addressed as a moral one. When we start legislating morality, as morality, we're a fucking theocracy. (2) The "moral dimension" should be saved for private discussion. People will, and probably should, think about their own moral codes when making decisions. But laws and government actions should never be couched in moral terms. Because then we're a fucking theocracy. (3) Just because a candidate calls something a moral issue doesn't necessarily make it so, and we shouldn't blindly accept that it's so merely because he or she says it is. Both of us can think of dozens of examples, but I'd like to suggest you start by examining the Sunday "blue" laws. Is that a moral issue? I doubt you'd concede that it is only on the basis of a claim by some religious zealots. If we allow every suggested piece of legislation to be presented as cloaked in biblical morality, and accept that all those issues are moral ones, we're a fucking theocracy.

Does that sum up my position clearly enough? In brief: I don't want our country to become a fucking theocracy.

Because that would be immoral.

PhillyChief said...

This is reminiscent of our argument on art. You wanted to argue whether something was or wasn't art, and I insisted everything was art, but the argument was in whether it was good or not.

#1 - You just rephrased what I said
#2 - That's just another way of phrasing #1
#3 - Sure, I'll call it a moral one. A morally vacuous one. See opening above about art. ;)

What I see from you is an irrational paranoia where any discussion of morality would erode into a theocracy. I find that ridiculous, and evidence would be slavery, the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement. Just because the final result is phrased in legalese does not magically wave away the moral aspect involved.

The Exterminator said...

Philly:
What I see from you is an irrational paranoia where any discussion of morality would erode into a theocracy.

Well, I remind you that even paranoids have enemies. And the theists are mine.

Seriously, I don't think my fears about the "moral dimension" are irrational or paranoiac. Remember: this is the United States, where we trust in god on our money, claim that our nation is under the special protection of a god, have domestic and foreign policy dictated by godpushing evangelicals, see our classrooms under attack by brainwashers and our science labs invaded by those who would impede progress, and where a freethinker has about as much chance of getting elected to high office as an ant.

But we do have a remarkable Constitution in this country, so we don't have to resort to "moral dimensions." And, really, you know as well as I do what Obama meant by that buzzword. He wasn't making a generic statement about the morality of abortions; he was saying that there are religious issues to be considered. Screw him.

By the way, all the examples you gave -- the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and civil rights -- are arguable on Constitutional grounds without injecting morals into the discussion. Are the results moral victories? You bet your ass. But no one said, or needed to say, "women's suffrage has a moral dimension" or "sure we should have civil rights but let's keep them safe and rare."

The Exterminator said...

A set of further questions for you regarding morality and politics, Philly. I've lettered them for our convenience:

A. How did you derive your own moral code? Did you reason it out, point by point? If not, how did you -- and do you -- decide what's moral and what's immoral?

B. If morality is subjective, as you and I claim, then every issue may be a moral one to somebody. So what exactly IS a moral issue under your definition?

C. How do you debate your code of morals, as morals, with someone who has a different code?

D. Do you know of any instances in American public life in which a political figure used the word "morals" when it wasn't a buzzword for religion?

PhillyChief said...

I believe the arguments for the status quo were grounded in morals, bad, vacuous morals (ie - biblical) and were overcome by better moral arguments.

Here, I'll pull one of your tricks: I say all the arguments to overcome slavery, denying women the right to vote and blacks equal rights were all or mostly moral arguments. Prove me wrong.

The Exterminator said...

Here, I'll pull one of your tricks: I say all the arguments to overcome slavery, denying women the right to vote and blacks equal rights were all or mostly moral arguments. Prove me wrong.

Ridiculous on the level of: "I believe in a god. Prove there isn't one."

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Morality, while it is hugely subjective, does have at least somewhat of a genetic basis. Children at a very young age are able to show an extraordinary amount of concern and empathy for others (William Damon's "The Moral Child"). Granted, this apparently innate sense of morality may be little more than a species-preserving evolutionary by-product. But, still, it shows morality as something beyond the mere clashing of competing paradigms. I think that there is also a pragmatic element to morality. In the words of Hobbes, "how best to prevent the war of all against all?"