Atheism & Morality

[Lumpen Prole]

Michael Gerson has an article in the WaPo which argues that atheists are unable to explain how someone is moral without their being some theistic intervention in the natural world; acknowledged by the individual or not. Gerson discredits Kantian morality and Bentham's utilitarianism in coming to the conclusion that without understanding that the moral qualities of "love, harmony and sympathy" flow through God as creator then morality becomes a cruel joke of nature and is deprived of goodness or moral quality.


The core question Gerson asks is:

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."


Because atheism does not recognise a god, creator or an omniprescient entity, then it cannot understand good, only want. Gerson is arguing that atheists are understand only selfishness, and not selflessness. For Gerson this does not stop atheists acting morally, but the consequence is:

Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.
Kantian morality and Benthem's utilitarianism both cover that aspect. Kant argues that reason makes an individual capable of seeing and understanding the 'supreme good'. Kant writes:

For reason recognizes the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination.
Reason does not prohibit the understanding of moral attitudes and actions of others. According to Kant, the better developed an individuals reason, then the better capable they are of judging moral acts; and not necessarily their own.

So Gerson's argument is that an atheists ability to reason is absolutely selfish and only knowledge of god enables selflessness. Kant's morality disproves this, as it only requires one atheist to reason whether another has acted morally or immorally to make Gerson's conclusion false.

As an example, South Sea Republic focuses heavily on the morality of republicanism and the morality of democracy. Which Avocadia described in the past as having to serve the 'morality of liberty'. We spend a lot of time discussing what are immoral acts toward republican governance, of which tyranny is the most immoral.

This is not unique to South Sea Republic, Australian Republicans such as Dan Deniehy and Charles Harpur rooted their republicanism in the morality of liberty. In this environment if an atheists is capable of recognising tyranny and reasoning its destructive conclusion, then an atheist is just as capable of moral understanding in a social, cultural, economic and political environment as a theist is.

Gerson's other argument for atheism's inherent limited moral faculties is that:

In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.
Gerson is arguing that materialism equates to immorality, and that theism' faith in God and presumably the infinite space of heaven, allows the theist to understand the immorality of materialism and atheism; where an atheist who has reasoned there is no valid proof for a supernatural being cannot.

Theism undeniably has a blind spot for reason. The thesis that atheists cannot recognise immorality in others must necessarily skip past the capability of atheists to reason.
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/philosophy/2007/07/atheism_and_mor.html


So, are atheists capable of leading moral lives? Is God necessary for ethics to exist? I request that theists state their position and defend it, and that atheists state and defend their own brand of morality.

[::Major_Baker::]

http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/philosophy/2007/07/atheism_and_mor.html


So, are atheists capable of leading moral lives? Is God necessary for ethics to exist? I request that theists state their position and defend it, and that atheists state and defend their own brand of morality.

I'm not an athiest, but an agnostic, and I have a response to this.
The whole notion is foolish.

Can atheists lead moral lives? Hard to say, since morality is subjective. Most groups agree that a few things are immoral, such as killing, hurting, stealing etc.
We certainly don't need a diety to tell us harming our fellow man is not a good thing--that's a common sense thing attributed with living in a civilized society.

god and ethics are completly unrelated. Some use god's word as their base for ethical behavior, or as a platform to condemn others. Regardless, relating ethics to relgion is not fair, for obvious reasons.

you'll find many defintions for ethics floating around, but I believe that it should be looked at as more of a cultural thing, and less of a humanity thing. There are a few basic rules that relate it through humanity, but they need to remain loose.

In my opinion, any definition of ethics that is applied to the human race as a whole is not viable, especially if the issuer is using the form of 'ethics' that is based on religion.

[Ethos]

The typical response is to "treat others as you would have them treat you", but the "Golden Rule" is patently false. Other people may not necessarily want me to treat them as I wish to be treated. Operating under this assumption bases the wants and needs of others on my personal reality, which is obviously a faulty notion.

As an atheist I prefer to observe a morality rooted in empathy. Excepting special circumstances, it is important to act toward other individuals in a way that does not harm them, directly or indirectly, if at all possible. Since I will not always know whether my actions might abridge this objective, I have an ethical obligation to attempt an understanding and recognition of others.

Ethos

[NetxMan]

I'm not an athiest, but an agnostic, and I have a response to this.
The whole notion is foolish.

Can atheists lead moral lives? Hard to say, since morality is subjective. Most groups agree that a few things are immoral, such as killing, hurting, stealing etc.
We certainly don't need a diety to tell us harming our fellow man is not a good thing--that's a common sense thing attributed with living in a civilized society.

god and ethics are completly unrelated. Some use god's word as their base for ethical behavior, or as a platform to condemn others. Regardless, relating ethics to relgion is not fair, for obvious reasons.

you'll find many defintions for ethics floating around, but I believe that it should be looked at as more of a cultural thing, and less of a humanity thing. There are a few basic rules that relate it through humanity, but they need to remain loose.

In my opinion, any definition of ethics that is applied to the human race as a whole is not viable, especially if the issuer is using the form of 'ethics' that is based on religion.

So their should be no base for ethics?

So if cultural says its alright to rape cows then it is ethical? Or to commit insest?

There is to be a solid base that we look at. Wether it be God, consideration of the consequences, agreement between people, or Law.

[::Major_Baker::]

So their should be no base for ethics?

[QUOTE]So if cultural says its alright to rape cows then it is ethical? Or to commit insest?
No religous base for ethics that should automatically apply to all of humanity, no.. Each culture should be free to determine the basis for their ethics, right?
Incenst physicaly and mentaly harms others, therefore it is probably covered in loosley connected ideas.

On raping cows....does the bible prohibit this? Or does it suggest animals should be dominated and used...?;)
I wonder who decided this was wrong? Personally I agree with them.


Wether it be God, consideration of the consequences, agreement between people, or Law.
I agree, a healthy combination 3 of the 4, but not to be forced on a group from another group. And if the base is God, it shouldn't be considered applicable to all people. for obvious reasons.

[NetxMan]

[QUOTE=NetxMan;1036047]So their should be no base for ethics?


No religous base for ethics that should automatically apply to all of humanity, no.. Each culture should be free to determine the basis for their ethics, right?
Incenst physicaly and mentaly harms others, therefore it is probably covered in loosley connected ideas.

On raping cows....does the bible prohibit this? Or does it suggest animals should be dominated and used...?;)
I wonder who decided this was wrong? Personally I agree with them.



I agree, a healthy combination 3 of the 4, but not to be forced on a group from another group. And if the base is God, it shouldn't be considered applicable to all people. for obvious reasons.

I agree also, just making sure that you weren't saying whatever a culture decides is automatically ethical also. I mean were the head hunter cannibals of the South America being ethical just because their culture decided it was ok to eat other humans?

There has to be some root.

[Ethos]

I agree also, just making sure that you weren't saying whatever a culture decides is automatically ethical also. I mean were the head hunter cannibals of the South America being ethical just because their culture decided it was ok to eat other humans?

There has to be some root.

As a point of argument, if a people agree cannibalism is ethically mandated, and that group of individuals also codifies that agreement in law, then they are indeed satisfying your third and fourth requirements for an ethical foundation.

Ethos

[NetxMan]

Point taken.

I think that is why I put all of them. Obviously most Gods wouldn't condone such a thing.

But Maybe there is a Cannibal God that does. Who knows?

[Ethos]

Point taken.

I think that is why I put all of them. Obviously most Gods wouldn't condone such a thing.

But Maybe there is a Cannibal God that does. Who knows?

No doubt. There have been gods who demand sacrifice as well, supported by the culture, mandated by law, with the consequences being irrelevant since those being sacrificed were not members of that society.

My point is one can satisfy each of your requirements and still proceed with immoral activities.

Ethos

[steveksux]

Point taken.

I think that is why I put all of them. Obviously most Gods wouldn't condone such a thing.

But Maybe there is a Cannibal God that does. Who knows?Religion is nearly universal in all cultures. Cannibals have their own religion, and their own Gods they worship. Presumably those Gods see no problem with cannibalism. I may have the wrong group, but in an anthropology class I believe it was the Masai warriors who believe that they get their lifetime supply of sperm from their fathers. Orally. Its a rite of passage of sorts. :eek: And of course there are plenty of examples of ancient cultures practicing human sacrifices to their Gods. Safe to assume those Gods approve if they actually require it. Was it the Mayans, or the Aztecs where that was popular? And the radical fundamentalist Islamists are convinced their God approves of killing infidels randomly in suicide attacks.

If you're going to base morality on God, the first thing you have to agree on is "which God". Good luck with that.

Religious people tend to claim that atheism gets you a lack of moral guidelines and all "hell" breaking loose from lack of moral authority. Apparently Gods can just as easily get you cannibals and homosexual incest and human sacrifices , built in with a moral authority to justify it.

The whole premise of the argument is flawed, assuming facts that are not true, that the "moral" values of religions are inherently "good" and a model for us all to follow. Typically, and presumably coincidentally, it tends to be the posters religion which is declared the one that should be adopted as the standard of "goodness".

I've rented "Apocalypto" by Mel Gibson, I may have more to add after seeing the religious morals depicted there... Atheists may be looking pretty good after that movie...

Randy

[AgentM]

People have their morality instilled by the society in which they live. Atheists will have similar morals as most religious people in the same society. There is no requirement of theism for morality.

[AgentM]

And of course there are plenty of examples of ancient cultures practicing human sacrifices. Was it the Mayans, or the Aztecs where that was popular?

I think it was the Aztecs.

[::Major_Baker::]

both cultures practiced this, in different ways.

[rjamortega]

So their should be no base for ethics?

So if cultural says its alright to rape cows then it is ethical? Or to commit insest?

There is to be a solid base that we look at. Wether it be God, consideration of the consequences, agreement between people, or Law.

Does The Big Bog know you've made this statement?

[steveksux]

And the gaping flaw in the theory is that Atheists are perfectly capable of making up whatever morality they see fit to adopt. Just as the various religions made up whatever morality they saw fit to adopt. The fact that they made them up thousands of years ago doesn't make them right. Morality is not a matter of seniority.

Why should morals made up by imaginary beings who were made up by men be any more of an authority on morality than morals made up by men directly?

Randy

[NetxMan]

Does The Big Bog know you've made this statement?


Please don't tell her... I will proudly donate a few bucks to http://www.kycattle.org/

[Turenne]

I'm not an athiest, but an agnostic, and I have a response to this.
The whole notion is foolish.

Can atheists lead moral lives? Hard to say, since morality is subjective. Most groups agree that a few things are immoral, such as killing, hurting, stealing etc.
We certainly don't need a diety to tell us harming our fellow man is not a good thing--that's a common sense thing attributed with living in a civilized society.

god and ethics are completly unrelated. Some use god's word as their base for ethical behavior, or as a platform to condemn others. Regardless, relating ethics to relgion is not fair, for obvious reasons.

you'll find many defintions for ethics floating around, but I believe that it should be looked at as more of a cultural thing, and less of a humanity thing. There are a few basic rules that relate it through humanity, but they need to remain loose.

In my opinion, any definition of ethics that is applied to the human race as a whole is not viable, especially if the issuer is using the form of 'ethics' that is based on religion.

Regardless of we think what 'most' groups agree on, saying morality is subjective is a particurly dangerous ideal. If we are to say that morality depends completely on the opinion of an individual then we can say that Nazi's like Himmler were morally justified in leading the holocaust. Likewise, if we are to say morality depends purely on the culture we grew up in then the amputation of arms in Saudi Arabia for pilfering can be morally justified, as can the practice of female mutilitation in Africa.No I think moral subjectivism is a moral abyss.

[steveksux]

Regardless of we think what 'most' groups agree on, saying morality is subjective is a particurly dangerous ideal. If we are to say that morality depends completely on the opinion of an individual then we can say that Nazi's like Himmler were morally justified in leading the holocaust. Likewise, if we are to say morality depends purely on the culture we grew up in then the amputation of arms in Saudi Arabia for pilfering can be morally justified, as can the practice of female mutilitation in Africa.No I think moral subjectivism is a moral abyss.
Saying a "God" is not required, and does not provide a sound basis for moral absolutes does not necessarily imply that moral subjectivism is the only alternative. The point was that the plethora of various Gods result in moral subjectivism all by themselves. To each God His own. Atheism may not cure the moral subjectivism, but it does not cause it either.

Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm an atheist and I believe morality is objective. I shall elaborate on this later. In short, I am a rational deontologist. Kantian ethics was discussed briefly in the original article.

[Turenne]

Saying a "God" is not required, and does not provide a sound basis for moral absolutes does not necessarily imply that moral subjectivism is the only alternative. The point was that the plethora of various Gods result in moral subjectivism all by themselves. To each God His own. Atheism may not cure the moral subjectivism, but it does not cause it either.

Randy

I agree.But I confess that I am two steps behind you again seemingly.I am both an atheist and a moral universalist, and was merely pointing out the pitfalls of two types of moral relativism.Did I misunderstand Major's point, or was he not saying he believed in moral subjectivism?

[::Major_Baker::]

Regardless of we think what 'most' groups agree on, saying morality is subjective is a particurly dangerous ideal. If we are to say that morality depends completely on the opinion of an individual then we can say that Nazi's like Himmler were morally justified in leading the holocaust. Likewise, if we are to say morality depends purely on the culture we grew up in then the amputation of arms in Saudi Arabia for pilfering can be morally justified, as can the practice of female mutilitation in Africa.No I think moral subjectivism is a moral abyss.

True, and moral objectivism isn't fair nor practical. That is why I thought that the best measurement may be defined most by a culture, not so much an individual, and certainly not a diety.

Realistically, you can't even accurately call someone else immoral.

[AgentM]

Regardless of we think what 'most' groups agree on, saying morality is subjective is a particurly dangerous ideal. If we are to say that morality depends completely on the opinion of an individual then we can say that Nazi's like Himmler were morally justified in leading the holocaust. Likewise, if we are to say morality depends purely on the culture we grew up in then the amputation of arms in Saudi Arabia for pilfering can be morally justified, as can the practice of female mutilitation in Africa.No I think moral subjectivism is a moral abyss.

Morality is subjective, yes it can be dangerous, but that's the world we live in. Obviously to enough Saudi's it's ok to amputate people's arms for theft. The Nazi's thought they were improving society with the Holocaust. Morals are merely standards that a society decides to come up with based on it's culture and whatnot. There are no universal "truths" or anything. That's just a concept that the majority of countries/cultures like to impose upon the minority. Most societies believe that murder and theft are wrong because it's horribly non efficient to allow it. Morals are often invented because they are practical.

[Turenne]

We seemed to have crossed wires or something, My post argued that you can neither base morals on culture or by individual opinion.You seem to disagree with relation to culture, yet said 'true' in reply to my post.

The idea that I can't say a mass murderer like Himmler is immoral is not only counter intuitive but also disturbing.Furthermore, saying I can't say female mutilation (the taking of a young girl and the forced cutting of parts of vagina) is immoral because she has grown up in a society where tradition dictates such brutality permissible and beneficial again seems just wrong.

[Turenne]

Morality is subjective, yes it can be dangerous, but that's the world we live in. Obviously to enough Saudi's it's ok to amputate people's arms for theft. The Nazi's thought they were improving society with the Holocaust. Morals are merely standards that a society decides to come up with based on it's culture and whatnot. There are no universal "truths" or anything. That's just a concept that the majority of countries/cultures like to impose upon the minority. Most societies believe that murder and theft are wrong because it's horribly non efficient to allow it. Morals are often invented because they are practical.

Your proof of this would be...?

[Atticus]

This is a really interesting question, and a complex one. Let me see if I can weave through the ideas a bit.

If we ask "Can an ethics be developed without a notion of God," then surely the answer is yes--we have multiple examples: Aristotle, Epictetus, and Epicurus all created ethical systems without reference to God. But all these systems are based on enlightened self-interest. That is, harming others can cause harm to the self.

But what about a morality that places the self lower than others--that places others first? This is more complicated, and it requires at least one more paring of the onion.

Is is possible for someone who doesn't believe in God to follow a system of ethics developed by theists (for whatever reason--tradition, respect for the actions of theists whose actual beliefs we don't follow, or even cherry-picking some elements of a theistic system without concern for others)? Again, the answer is surely yes. It's my thought that the ethics of many non-theists in the West is a kind of "post-Christianity," taking on some of the forms and much of the ethics of Christianity without maintaining its central thesis.

However, could a non-theist DEVELOP, INDEPENDENT OF GOD, an ethics not grounded in the good of the self? That's more problematic, mostly because even thinking about the question invites a post hoc fallacy. How can we know whether B results from A when we have no situations where B does not follow A?

It's my idea that a belief in God at least one impetus for a selfless ethics--God becomes the motivating factor, though once in place such an ethics might be followed without a belief in God. Perhaps its the only one. In any case, it's a difficult hypothesis to test.

Can anyone think of an ethics that is both a) based on the good of someone other than the self and b) was developed independent of theism?

[AgentM]

The idea that I can't say a mass murderer like Himmler is immoral is not only counter intuitive but also disturbing.Furthermore, saying I can't say female mutilation (the taking of a young girl and the forced cutting of parts of vagina) is immoral because she has grown up in a society where tradition dictates such brutality permissible and beneficial again seems just wrong.

I wasn't saying that we can't say those things are immoral. They are immoral to us, and we can certainly state our opinion and try to convince others. I was just arguing that there is no universal morality, merely a majority and minority.

[AgentM]

Your proof of this would be...?

Where's yours?

[::Major_Baker::]

Regardless of we think what 'most' groups agree on, saying morality is subjective is a particurly dangerous ideal
I was acknowledging that saying morality is subjective is dangerous, but my point was that it is much less dangerous than saying it is objective.

We seemed to have crossed wires or something, My post argued that you can neither base morals on culture or by individual opinion.
What would you base it on, then? Your personal beliefs? subjective. If not, show me the worlwide guide of morality.

The idea that I can't say a mass murderer like Himmler is immoral is not only counter intuitive but also disturbing.Furthermore, saying I can't say female mutilation (the taking of a young girl and the forced cutting of parts of vagina) is immoral because she has grown up in a society where tradition dictates such brutality permissible and beneficial again seems just wrong
You can say both of these, and you would find me in agreeance on both points. However, our thoughts on these matters do not dictate the thoughts of others. This is my point. What we percieve as immoral others may not, therefore, morality is subjective.

that's the extent of this argument.

[Turenne]

I will ask this one question to any morals subjectivists - you are in Africa and present at a traditional ceremony that celebrates the mutiliation of a young female girl, putting her at risk of disease and possibly destroying any future sexual pleasure. There is no benefit to the girl but only to the chauvinistic society which wishes to steal any pleasure this girl may have, and 'to keep her in her place'. Being present at the ceremony you have the opportuinity to stop this barbarity - will you intervene and save the girl or allow her to be cut apart out if respect for the local traditions, laws and supposed morals?

[AgentM]

Is is possible for someone who doesn't believe in God to follow a system of ethics developed by theists (for whatever reason--tradition, respect for the actions of theists whose actual beliefs we don't follow, or even cherry-picking some elements of a theistic system without concern for others)? Again, the answer is surely yes. It's my thought that the ethics of many non-theists in the West is a kind of "post-Christianity," taking on some of the forms and much of the ethics of Christianity without maintaining its central thesis.

Yes, much of us non-theists' ethics would be based off of Christianity in the West because that religion has been so big a part of our culture, it helped shape our society and since we develop our ethics based upon the society in which we live (usually) there will be Christian influence. Just as a non-religious person raised in a Muslim country would probably glean much of their ethics from Islam, because it's so integrated into society.

[::Major_Baker::]

I will ask this one question to any morals subjectivists - you are in Africa and present at a traditional ceremony that celebrates the mutiliation of a young female girl, putting her at risk of disease and possibly destroying any future sexual pleasure. There is no benefit to the girl but only to the chauvinistic society which wishes to steal any pleasure this girl may have, and 'to keep her in her place'. Being present at the ceremony you have the opportuinity to stop this barbarity - will you intervene and save the girl or allow her to be cut apart out if respect for the local traditions, laws and supposed morals?

Seeing as how I find this morally repugnant, I would try to stop it if I had the chance.
Chances are the males in charge of this celebration would let it go through, because they seem to think it is a moral and needed act.
Again, i think you understand my arguement--it's really quite simple. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, as bad as that can seem.

[Atticus]

Seeing as how I find this morally repugnant, I might try to stop it if I had the chance.
Again, i think you understand my arguement.From Michele de Montaigne's "On Cannibals:" . . . I do not find that there is anything barbaric or savage about this nation, according to what I've been told, unless we are to call barbarism whatever differs from our own customs. Indeed, we seem to have no other standard of truth and reason than the opinions and customs of our own country. There at home is always the perfect religion, the perfect legal system--the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/montaigne.html

[Lumpen Prole]

Can anyone think of an ethics that is both a) based on the good of someone other than the self and b) was developed independent of theism?

Utilitarianism.

[Ethos]

Honestly I don't see how belief in god could produce "selfless" ethics. If each action in life follows concern for or the expectation of personal salvation, it would seem antithetical to selflessness.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Honestly I don't see how belief in god could produce "selfless" ethics. If each action in life follows concern for or the expectation of personal salvation, it would seem antithetical to selflessness.

EthosThe idea is that to really be near to God, one must see the world as He does. That returns to your idea of empathy, since a loving God has empathy for all creation. It's my hope that no one achieves salvation while remaining entirely selfish. To me, selfishness is the antithesis of salvation. I'm not one who subscribes to the "Jesus as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card" notion of salvation--which is hardly a universal idea among Christians.

Here's a question: In this thread, the idea of empathy as the basis of ethics was raised. What is the motivation for empathy, other than God? Is it just about the feeling of empathy that occasionally rises in humans that determines such an ethics, or is there something more disciplined about it? And if so, what motivates that discipline?

[Atticus]

Utilitarianism.An interesting idea, except that utilitarianism didn't create itself in a vacuum, but was inevitably influenced by the culture of its time, which for the most part was Christian. It's hard for me to see the motivation for "the greatest good for the greatest number" as not reflecting either a sense of self-interest (since we will be happiest surrounded by people who are also happy) or notions of a Christian God (who loves each person equally and therefore is concerned about the welfare of everyone).

[Turenne]

Seeing as how I find this morally repugnant, I would try to stop it if I had the chance.
Chances are the males in charge of this celebration would let it go through, because they seem to think it is a moral and needed act.
Again, i think you understand my arguement--it's really quite simple. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, as bad as that can seem.

Yes I think I get it. In the scenario I outlined, you would be morally justified in intervening, and those present would be morally justified in stopping your intervention. You and those willingly taking part in the ceremony are both justified in their actions, despite holding complete contradictory views on the female mutilation.You think its 'immoral' and you are right; the locals present think it 'moral' and they are also right. Both sides are speaking the truth, despite disagring with each other?

Lets just get the implications correct here.The US would have had no case in putting on trail Himmler, Goering, Heydrich and a whole number of other Nazi leaders because these mass murderers were morally right - they were, after all, living in a German society that said Jews should be treated like cattle and slaughtered. How where they to know any better?Their morals were dictated to them by the state and the society they lived in.There is no moral truths - only personal opinions and the morality prevalent in their native society - and so the US has no right to put them in trail. Those mass murderers cannot and should not be held to any moral law beyond that of those prevalent in Nazi Germany - universal norms like you cannot murder or torture or maim are irrelevent. No trails of the likes of Saddam Hussein, or Slobadan Milosevic.No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Only an acceptance that morality is something dependent on anarchaic traditions and prevelant opinion. Yes?

[Ethos]

The idea is that to really be near to God, one must see the world as He does. That returns to your idea of empathy, since a loving God has empathy for all creation. It's my hope that no one achieves salvation while remaining entirely selfish. To me, selfishness is the antithesis of salvation. I'm not one who subscribes to the "Jesus as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card" notion of salvation--which is hardly a universal idea among Christians.

Regardless, being "closer" to god or in any other way you choose to describe it, the foundation is inherently tied to self-interest. You are speaking of a personal relationship cultivated and maintained for the benefit of the individual, however small.



Here's a question: In this thread, the idea of empathy as the basis of ethics was raised. What is the motivation for empathy, other than God? Is it just about the feeling of empathy that occasionally rises in humans that determines such an ethics, or is there something more disciplined about it? And if so, what motivates that discipline?

Empathy is unrelated to god. Observing and reacting to the feelings of others is an instinctual impulse. Discipline comes in where we must widen those observations, taking into account highly complex social interactions. The process is based on communication between two people alone, indepedent of any sort of higher power directive.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Regardless, being "closer" to god or in any other way you choose to describe it, the foundation is inherently tied to self-interest. You are speaking of a personal relationship cultivated and maintained for the benefit of the individual, however small.You're assuming something that isn't true--that the motivations to salvation are, at root, self-interested. I would argue that all the things Christians say about "changing hearts" shows that we're really talking about changing the believer to be more godlike rather than trying to change God's attitude toward us.
Empathy is unrelated to god. Observing and reacting to the feelings of others is an instinctual impulse. Discipline comes in where we must widen those observations, taking into account highly complex social interactions. The process is based on communication between two people alone, indepedent of any sort of higher power directive.Again, I disagree. I don't think empathy (a setting aside of one's own conscience to take on that of another) is instinctual at all. It's a matter of more complexity than that.

Other than the occasional, almost random emotional sense of empathy, what motivation do we have to create a more disciplined, wider sense of empathy other than God (or whatever shadow of Himself stands in His place)? Social custom? Acceptance in the community (again, coming back around to self-interest)? If the latter, what stands between real empathy and whatever we convince ourselves we SHOULD be feeling because we want to project the image of being large-hearted?

[Turenne]

I'll let Julia Driver (from the excellent Ethics:the fundamentals) explain why the idea that we can derive our morals from God is flawed:

If there are reasons why God deems an action to be "right" or "wrong," then it is really those reasons that provide the account of "right" or "wrong" - not God's will. It forces us to choose between two unpalatable options: either (i) what is right is completely determined by God's will, or what God wants, and is thus capricious in a way that seems incompatible with rightness; or (ii) God does not determine what is right, but is simply in the best position to discern or percieve what is right, since He is infallible.

[::Major_Baker::]

Yes I think I get it. In the scenario I outlined, you would be morally justified in intervening, and those present would be morally justified in stopping your intervention. You and those willingly taking part in the ceremony are both justified in their actions, despite holding complete contradictory views on the female mutilation.You think its 'immoral' and you are right; the locals present think it 'moral' and they are also right. Both sides are speaking the truth, despite disagring with each other?

Lets just get the implications correct here.The US would have had no case in putting on trail Himmler, Goering, Heydrich and a whole number of other Nazi leaders because these mass murderers were morally right - they were, after all, living in a German society that said Jews should be treated like cattle and slaughtered. How where they to know any better?Their morals were dictated to them by the state and the society they lived in.There is no moral truths - only personal opinions and the morality prevalent in their native society - and so the US has no right to put them in trail. Those mass murderers cannot and should not be held to any moral law beyond that of those prevalent in Nazi Germany - universal norms like you cannot murder or torture or maim are irrelevent. No trails of the likes of Saddam Hussein, or Slobadan Milosevic.No Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Only an acceptance that morality is something dependent on anarchaic traditions and prevelant opinion. Yes?

Wrong.
You mentioned the declaration of human rights. This could be seen as a moral agreement adopted by the majority.
So it is what we percieve as a majority to be moral standards, and we intend to pursue those who violate this code. Which is good. But the nature of this pursuit is based on some common standards we have all agreed to adopt. Now think of this group of nations as a 'cultural' element.
We're not really disagreeing, the only thing I am saying is that there is no blanket morality, only one of majority or cultural rule. There just can't be, especially if you tie it to a certain religion.

[Ethos]

You're assuming something that isn't true--that the motivations to salvation are, at root, self-interested. I would argue that all the things Christians say about "changing hearts" shows that we're really talking about changing the believer to be more godlike rather than trying to change God's attitude toward us.


You seem to be inferring an all-or-nothing position here. I would not say that salvation or any other religious concept is entirely based on self-interest, only that the very basis of forming a relationship with anyone - god included - is in some part a selfish action.



Again, I disagree. I don't think empathy (a setting aside of one's own conscience to take on that of another) is instinctual at all. It's a matter of more complexity than that.

Empathy is instinctual, as evidenced by our emotive responses to a crying child or an injured animal. Again I am not talking about a complete picture, only the very basics of the response itself. Two adults will relate to one another in far more complex ways than the two examples I've given, and that is where the discipline comes in.



Other than the occasional, almost random emotional sense of empathy, what motivation do we have to create a more disciplined, wider sense of empathy other than God (or whatever shadow of Himself stands in His place)? Social custom? Acceptance in the community (again, coming back around to self-interest)? If the latter, what stands between real empathy and whatever we convince ourselves we SHOULD be feeling because we want to project the image of being large-hearted?

I suspect your position here would change if you viewed empathy as an inherent aspect of our personalities rather than some rare or fleeting emotion. Empathy is the foundation of interaction between individuals - we do something which causes a positive or negative response in another and act accordingly. It is our responsibility to recognize the result and act appropriately.

Ethos

[serenity]

I suspect your position here would change if you viewed empathy as an inherent aspect of our personalities rather than some rare or fleeting emotion. Empathy is the foundation of interaction between individuals - we do something which causes a positive or negative response in another and act accordingly.

I agree. I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that empathy is somehow fleeting or (relatively) trivial unless God is brought into the picture. It is a truly fundamental aspect of the human being, inherent. And I can't quite see why it shouldn't become complex and disciplined, as we are complex social animals.

[Atticus]

You seem to be inferring an all-or-nothing position here. I would not say that salvation or any other religious concept is entirely based on self-interest, only that the very basis of forming a relationship with anyone - god included - is in some part a selfish action. And so we have a conundrum--a selfish act that necessitates a selfless understanding....hmmm...
Empathy is instinctual, as evidenced by our emotive responses to a crying child or an injured animal. Again I am not talking about a complete picture, only the very basics of the response itself. Two adults will relate to one another in far more complex ways than the two examples I've given, and that is where the discipline comes in.The crying child I get as instinctual--there's even a logical explanation for it. I'm not so sure about the animal.
I suspect your position here would change if you viewed empathy as an inherent aspect of our personalities rather than some rare or fleeting emotion. Empathy is the foundation of interaction between individuals - we do something which causes a positive or negative response in another and act accordingly. It is our responsibility to recognize the result and act appropriately.But what you've described here doesn't sound like empathy at all. If all we're doing is observing the reactions of others and acting accordingly, that doesn't require empathy. Sociopaths who feel neither guilt nor empathy can look at the reactions of others and plot a successful plan of action based on experience--they have no emotional connection to that plan at all; it's just a strategy.

I get that humans are social animals, but the shape of our interactions are not necessarily based on empathy much at all. The Romans, for example, managed their social interactions rather functionally without much empathy at all. Power and its management were more important. Empathy isn't really necessarily to the social interactions of our species, is it? Certainly not the level of empathy regularly encouraged by culture today.

I just don't know how you divorce that social expectation of empathy from culture and how we separate our culture from the theism in which it grew.

The real question, it seems to me, is whether morality (as opposed to ethics) can be maintained through several generations without the animating power of faith. Even the shadow of a faith that was-but-is-no-more has an effect on those who profess no belief (I think).

[Ethos]

And so we have a conundrum--a selfish act that necessitates a selfless understanding....hmmm...


Again you are using absolutes, which is incorrect. There is a middle ground between selfish (primarily concerned with the personal) and selfless (primarily concerned with others).


The crying child I get as instinctual--there's even a logical explanation for it. I'm not so sure about the animal.

Yes, there is a logical explanation, one that follows as an explanation for more complex forms of empathy.

You aren't sure about animals? What emotional reaction do you have toward a limping, whining dog? Or a bird with a broken wing swerving across a busy street?



But what you've described here doesn't sound like empathy at all. If all we're doing is observing the reactions of others and acting accordingly, that doesn't require empathy. Sociopaths who feel neither guilt nor empathy can look at the reactions of others and plot a successful plan of action based on experience--they have no emotional connection to that plan at all; it's just a strategy.

There are always exceptions. Sociopaths do not operate on the same psychology as the majority of people. On another point, there are obvious times when an action must be taken irrelevant of the feelings of another, etc.



I get that humans are social animals, but the shape of our interactions are not necessarily based on empathy much at all. The Romans, for example, managed their social interactions rather functionally without much empathy at all. Power and its management were more important. Empathy isn't really necessarily to the social interactions of our species, is it? Certainly not the level of empathy regularly encouraged by culture today.

Perhaps it is your understanding of "empathy" that is inaccurate, rather than my application of it.



I just don't know how you divorce that social expectation of empathy from culture and how we separate our culture from the theism in which it grew.

Social expectation of empathy? I'm not certain what you are trying to convey. In regard to theism, you are right in that we cannot separate it from our culture. The point of the thread however is to describe how a standard of morality can be formed indepedent from theism, not whether or not we can (or should) alter society to do so.



The real question, it seems to me, is whether morality (as opposed to ethics) can be maintained through several generations without the animating power of faith. Even the shadow of a faith that was-but-is-no-more has an effect on those who profess no belief (I think).

Faith is taught, as is societal morality. I would expect alternative standards and origins of morality can be passed from one generation to the next in the same manner.

Ethos

[serenity]

The real question, it seems to me, is whether morality (as opposed to ethics) can be maintained through several generations without the animating power of faith. Even the shadow of a faith that was-but-is-no-more has an effect on those who profess no belief (I think).


I do think this is an interesting question, but I certainly don't think it's an absolute given. And I do hear exactly this uttered as a declarative statement from time to time, as if it's really knowable.

[steveksux]

Can anyone think of an ethics that is both a) based on the good of someone other than the self and b) was developed independent of theism?
Parents and their children. They often sacrifice their own needs to provide for their children.
Warriors risk all for their society.

Randy

[Atticus]

Again you are using absolutes, which is incorrect. There is a middle ground between selfish (primarily concerned with the personal) and selfless (primarily concerned with others).Am I? At this point I've rather lost the thread of what you meant. My meaning was to discuss a point I'd made earlier that I thought you had misunderstood.
Yes, there is a logical explanation, one that follows as an explanation for more complex forms of empathy.Perhaps you might share it then. What is a "more complex form of empathy?"
You aren't sure about animals? What emotional reaction do you have toward a limping, whining dog? Or a bird with a broken wing swerving across a busy street?Honestly (at the purely visceral level I think of as instinctual) that depends on how well my own needs are cared for. If I were hungry enough, I might see an limping dog as an opportunity for dinner, and salivate. We pampered modern Westerners forget how much our empathy depends on how well our own needs are cared for.
There are always exceptions. Sociopaths do not operate on the same psychology as the majority of people. On another point, there are obvious times when an action must be taken irrelevant of the feelings of another, etc.I don't think you're taking my point. I'm not saying that empathy isn't instinctual because it doesn't apply to every single human. I'm saying that social rules that look like empathy can be learned--and since the development of an instinct happens because it's functional--it's just as likely that what you're calling an instinct is, in fact, a learned behavior.Perhaps it is your understanding of "empathy" that is inaccurate, rather than my application of it.Perhaps, but that begs a question, doesn't it? How is my understanding of empathy inaccurate? We can't have a discussion if we don't agree on the meanings of the terms.
Social expectation of empathy? I'm not certain what you are trying to convey.I'm saying that if you hum a few bars, most of us can fake it. In regard to theism, you are right in that we cannot separate it from our culture. The point of the thread however is to describe how a standard of morality can be formed indepedent from theism, not whether or not we can (or should) alter society to do so.Right. And I'm saying that since our cultural understanding of morality is steeped in our theistic history, separating them is pretty much impossible. I don't think I spoke about altering society.
Faith is taught, as is societal morality. I would expect alternative standards and origins of morality can be passed from one generation to the next in the same manner.My thought is that the power of those standards will be attenuated over time without an animating force like faith to sustain it.

Again, I'm not claiming that there can be no ethics without theism. Rather, I wonder if theism does not shape ethics in important ways so that, without it, the ethics of our decedents will necessarily change from our current conceptions.

Roman ethics, for example, doesn't look much like ethics at all when viewed through a contemporary (theism-colored) lens. Ideas like the equality of humankind, the necessity of equal justice under law, the protection of children, the lower status of animals when compared to humans--these are innovations that seem necessary to ethics today and I think we'd be foolish to overlook the contribution of Western theism to their development. Just so, without it, future ethics may also change so as to be unrecognizable.

[Atticus]

I do think this is an interesting question, but I certainly don't think it's an absolute given. And I do hear exactly this uttered as a declarative statement from time to time, as if it's really knowable.I believe it, but that doesn't make it knowable in the sense you mean (provable).

[serenity]

I believe it, but that doesn't make it knowable in the sense you mean (provable).

No, of course, and I'm not suggesting that provable is some prerequisite, not at all.

I'm saying that social rules that look like empathy can be learned--and since the development of an instinct happens because it's functional--it's just as likely that what you're calling an instinct is, in fact, a learned behavior.

But I don't think there can be a learned behavior that is not already present in some instinctual way. We are born with an innate capacity to be extremely callous or extremely compassionate. (Perhaps I'm stating the obvious?). What i mean is that I don't think we can totally separate natural inclinations and/or instinct with learned behavior.

[lord tammerlain]

The real question, it seems to me, is whether morality (as opposed to ethics) can be maintained through several generations without the animating power of faith. Even the shadow of a faith that was-but-is-no-more has an effect on those who profess no belief (I think).

Yes it can.

Morality is generally just a codex of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a given society. It does not require religous faith to continue, although religious faith provides a strong motivator that encourages people to follow that particular codex. Most morals relate to ensuring a society is functional. As such even an aethist society would require a set of shared morals to operate smoothly.

Overall every society has developed a codex of morals not because of faith, but because it is an essential development for any society. A group of aethists would require a moral code, just a much as a group of bhuddists. The particular code will be different, but both groups would have one.

[lord tammerlain]

Again, I'm not claiming that there can be no ethics without theism. Rather, I wonder if theism does not shape ethics in important ways so that, without it, the ethics of our decedents will necessarily change from our current conceptions.

Roman ethics, for example, doesn't look much like ethics at all when viewed through a contemporary (theism-colored) lens. Ideas like the equality of humankind, the necessity of equal justice under law, the protection of children, the lower status of animals when compared to humans--these are innovations that seem necessary to ethics today and I think we'd be foolish to overlook the contribution of Western theism to their development. Just so, without it, future ethics may also change so as to be unrecognizable.
Relgion of course does shape ethics in vary important ways. Religion has been the primary source of ethics for the majority of people. Religion's have been the source of most socially acceptable behaviour up untill the 1700's. However certain ethics/morals are relatively common among all societies and would survive without religion

[Atticus]

If you look carefully, LT, I don't think you'll find I've said anything different. I said, as you did, that ethics would change. I'm arguing that a particular strand of ethics, one that has a strong influence in our culture, might very well not exist without a notion of God.

Let me try a specific example:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say unto you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would soe you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you." (Matthew 5 38-42 RSV)I think this idea (and other like it in the same general vicinity) have a profound (and to my mind, positive) effect on Western ethics. From a temporal standpoint, they make no sense. It makes no sense to help someone who is so different from you that you've been taught not to have empathy for him (Good Samaritan) or to be merciful when you have no expectation of mercy in return or when there's no way that a good turn will be returned to you. I think these ideas have a profound effect on what we see as right (even if we do not ourselves practice it in the moment). Profound and valuable. And I don't see how they could be developed without a notion of God or at least a notion of some force beyond ourselves. Some of these ideas, for example, appear in Buddhism or Confucianism, but they are attached to a concept of ethics that moves beyond self-interest.

So my question is whether the valuable elements of our current ethics, like what I've quoted, can continue to survive long into a post-theistic culture--or will such a culture naturally change back to an ethics based largely on quid pro quo?

[Atticus]

If you look carefully, LT, I don't think you'll find I've said anything different. I said, as you did, that ethics would change. I'm arguing that a particular strand of ethics, one that has a strong influence in our culture, might very well not exist without a notion of God.

Let me try a specific example:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say unto you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would soe you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you." (Matthew 5 38-42 RSV)I think this idea (and other like it in the same general vicinity) have a profound (and to my mind, positive) effect on Western ethics. From a temporal standpoint, they make no sense. It makes no sense to help someone who is so different from you that you've been taught not to have empathy for him (Good Samaritan) or to be merciful when you have no expectation of mercy in return or when there's no way that a good turn will be returned to you. I think these ideas have a profound effect on what we see as right (even if we do not ourselves practice it in the moment). Profound and valuable. And I don't see how they could be developed without a notion of God or at least a notion of some force beyond ourselves. Some of these ideas, for example, appear in Buddhism or Confucianism, but they are attached to a concept of ethics that moves beyond self-interest.

So my question is whether the valuable elements of our current ethics, like what I've quoted, can continue to survive long into a post-theistic culture--or will such a culture naturally change back to an ethics based largely on quid pro quo.

[lord tammerlain]

If you look carefully, LT, I don't think you'll find I've said anything different. I said, as you did, that ethics would change. I'm arguing that a particular strand of ethics, one that has a strong influence in our culture, might very well not exist without a notion of God.

Let me try a specific example:

I think this idea (and other like it in the same general vicinity) have a profound (and to my mind, positive) effect on Western ethics. From a temporal standpoint, they make no sense. It makes no sense to help someone who is so different from you that you've been taught not to have empathy for him (Good Samaritan) or to be merciful when you have no expectation of mercy in return or when there's no way that a good turn will be returned to you. I think these ideas have a profound effect on what we see as right (even if we do not ourselves practice it in the moment). Profound and valuable. And I don't see how they could be developed without a notion of God or at least a notion of some force beyond ourselves. Some of these ideas, for example, appear in Buddhism or Confucianism, but they are attached to a concept of ethics that moves beyond self-interest.

So my question is whether the valuable elements of our current ethics, like what I've quoted, can continue to survive long into a post-theistic culture--or will such a culture naturally change back to an ethics based largely on quid pro quo?
Quid pro quo of course does take part in the expectation of mercy. Even if it may take 5 or 10 years for you to recieve the benifits of it.

If I show mercy today, generally I am going to expect it in the future. Therefore I will show mercy today, tommorow and in the general future so that if I ever require it, it would still be a general societal expectation for me to recieve it.

It is my opinion is that religion for most people provides an extra motivator for the Quid pro quo system to survive. The idea of an all knowing god, makes breaking societal expectations rather more difficult then when the only people who would know you broke the societal expectation would be the person you wronged.

[USViking]

The core question Gerson asks is:

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.
Atheism does have an answer, and there is no dilemma.

The answer is: "We should cultivate the better angels
of our nature because Love requires it."

God is not needed to recognize Love and to act in the
spirit of Love.

This does not mean God necessarily gets in the way.

I bear intimate witness in many people who believe in God
who I have known who were really paragons of morality,
as much as a human being can be a paragon. They put
my own sin-filled life to shame.

I believe that for every such person I have known there
must be millions of others. Their lives are the reason I
draw back from the idea of a world without God. He can
be the parent of the best in women and men.

[USViking]

So, are atheists capable of leading moral lives?
Yes.

I have one family member who is an atheist like me.
She is as much of a paragon as anyone I have known.





Is God necessary for ethics to exist?
No.




I request that that atheists state and defend their own brand of morality.
Details, details.

[Craig]

both cultures practiced this, in different ways.

I'm going a bit off topic, but Major Baker is correct. I've visited a Mayan cave with a sacrificial "alter" in it, so the Mayans certainly practiced it too.

[::Major_Baker::]

I'm going a bit off topic, but Major Baker is correct. I've visited a Mayan cave with a sacrificial "alter" in it, so the Mayans certainly practiced it too.

I have visted many areas in the Yucatan where the Mayans practiced these rituals, too. From what I understand, the aztecs had mass sacrifices, with many people one after another. the Mayans did it less frequently.

[Groucho]

Do Christians who say these sorts of things really even realize how terrible insulting they are and how ridiculous they sound to atheists? "I'm superior to you because my morals are based on belief in a supernatural being, while yours are simply based on rational thought and ethics."

[Turenne]

My own morality, as an atheist, comes from certain normative claims that I choose to believe have truth and universal values - the belief that we ought not harm others, not murder, not steal, should respect human beings regardless of religion/race/sex and so on. These basic moral values of mine are essentially cultivated from my liberal ideals, which come, simply put, from the books I have read and personal experience.

[Atticus]

Do Christians who say these sorts of things really even realize how terrible insulting they are and how ridiculous they sound to atheists? "I'm superior to you because my morals are based on belief in a supernatural being, while yours are simply based on rational thought and ethics."Well, first, that's what they were invited to do, after all.

Second, is that really what you see here? Is that a fair characterization of what's been said?

I don't see anywhere that someone has said that one system was superior to another; they certainly didn't say THEY were superior to YOU. I said that the precise character of some moral systems (one I particularly value) would not be the same without a belief in a supernatural being, but I don't see anyone claiming their system is SUPERIOR because of their belief in a supernatural being.

That's not the same as the pig-headed claim you're describing here. Maybe you've heard such things many times from others and are reading in here? Maybe

I often find on this forum that people want to argue--not with me, but with some other perspective they are angry with but that I don't represent. I'm sort of in the vicinity, but it takes a wide shot gun blast to aim at that other and still manage to hit me. :shrug:

[Groucho]

Well, first, that's what they were invited to do, after all.

Well, admittedly, I was just speaking in generalities. It's not the first time I have been accused of having no morals simply because I have no god. I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, just the basic topic.

[Atticus]

... I have been accused of having no morals simply because I have no god.Well, on behalf of God-believing people like myself,
that sucks.

If I wanted you to believe in God, that's the last place I'd start the argument.

[steveksux]

Well, on behalf of God-believing people like myself,
that sucks.

If I wanted you to believe in God, that's the last place I'd start the argument.I don't think that you've made that argument, nor that Groucho was referring to you. But its a common theme among many who have based their morality on their religious beliefs. I think he was more just pointing that out rather than intending to tar you with that brush.

Randy

[pelkgator]

Ethics is an idea and does not literally exist, yet we continue to try to give it a personality. Ethics are what a person, or a united group believe human behavior should be. It is nothing more than that. Any further discussion on ethics or morality is an utter waste of time. They are just ambiguous words tossed around by which ever side is benefitted from them. Isolate an action and then decide whether or not on a whole that action is detrimental to society. If it is is, then it is bad, immoral or what have you.

[Ethos]

Having been out for a day I believe it would be best to use a fresh composure. I dislike splitting the narrative into ten or fifteen separately quoted replies. It is my intent to further expand on my original post (morality based on empathy) and address various points made since.

As a start, perhaps I should offer a definition for empathy that will be used, plus two qualifications to the term:


Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

As a qualification I will add that I believe a certain level of empathy is inherent to the species (instinctual) and evolutionary. This is also not a trait unique to humans, if recent research is any indication:


This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation,
which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

With this foundation, I am putting forth the argument that non-theistic morality can (and should) be based on the understanding of how our actions affect others, adjusting those behaviors accordingly. Any act that causes unnecessary harm to others is immoral. Empathy allows us to recognize these responses and reconcile appropriately.

The empathic response itself can be complex. As an example, if something I do hurts someone else, but that person is not in the room for me to witness their reaction, I am less likely to change my behavior. If however that individual provides a visual context for their pain, my ability to understand their position is enhanced and the probability that I will alter my own habits is increased.

To a point these interactions are learned. Obviously society places a certain emphasis (or de-emphasis) on how we respond to the suffering of others. Should we care for starving children in Africa? Of course. Should we care for starving children in Iran? Not so much. However empathy is at its core an unconscious event. Regardless of the cultural conditioning you received (infomercials), if you place an emaciated human being directly in front of an average American, they [/i]will[/i] have a visceral response. That's the basics of human interaction as it pertains to morality. You don't feel anguish for a suffering human because the Bible says to, you do it because you consider - however briefly - how it might be for you to be in that same situation.

I understand this next point will be controversial, and I am not speaking in a generalized sense.. however if anything, theism allows us the tools necessary to ignore instinctual morality in favor of a more culturally shaped construct. Using extreme examples of human sacrifice or slavery, it can be shown that religious instruction is used to justify these actions, framing them in a "moral" sense as a means of countering our initial, sometimes subconscious responses to another human in distress.

In a more specific and relevant example, homosexuality is demonized through the Bible. For some individuals it becomes ethically acceptable to psychologically assault gays. They have no ability to form an empathic connection with their victims because religious doctrine forbids them from doing so.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

An interesting idea, except that utilitarianism didn't create itself in a vacuum, but was inevitably influenced by the culture of its time, which for the most part was Christian. It's hard for me to see the motivation for "the greatest good for the greatest number" as not reflecting either a sense of self-interest (since we will be happiest surrounded by people who are also happy) or notions of a Christian God (who loves each person equally and therefore is concerned about the welfare of everyone).

Influenced by the culture of the time? Sure, but I don't see this as a particularly valid point. Any ethical philosophy formulated since the Enlightenment would have been influenced by Christianity by this reasoning. I'm not conteding that this is untrue, but you seem to be implying that any such philosophy is derived from Christian morality. The point about utilitarianism was that moral behavior is not that which benefits any one individual. I would also argue that any ethical system, including Christian morality, is derived from selfish motivations.

Anyways, I consider myself a rational deontologist, which is based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. One of the basic tenents of this ethical philosophy is that the ends do not justify the means. Similarly, it is not considered ethical to treat people as a means to some further end; people are to be treated as ends in themselves. Any behavior, whether inherently selfish or not, is morally justified only if the axioms on which it rests can be universalized and it does not treat others a means to some further end.

[Atticus]

Influenced by the culture of the time? Sure, but I don't see this as a particularly valid point. Any ethical philosophy formulated since the Enlightenment would have been influenced by Christianity by this reasoning. I'm not conteding that this is untrue, but you seem to be implying that any such philosophy is derived from Christian morality. And I'm suggesting that it is impossible to suggest a morality that stems from atheism if you cite only notions that grew out of theistic cultures. I'm not suggesting such a thing is impossible--quite the contrary--only that it's a testable hypothesis.

It is a curious thing to me that we can't compare the ethical system of, say, the Romans, with some that came later and were influenced by a particular theistic system.

I would suggest that notions like "Blessed are the poor" or "Blessed are the peacemakers" come from something other than selfish motives.

"Blessed are you who hunger now, because you will be filled."
"Blessed are you who mourn now, for you shall be comforted."

You can say that the expectation of some future reward motivates these values, but you can't say this expectation isn't based on a notion of a loving and just God who will provide the reward later.

[Lumpen Prole]

And I'm suggesting that it is impossible to suggest a morality that stems from atheism if you cite only notions that grew out of theistic cultures. I'm not suggesting such a thing is impossible--quite the contrary--only that it's a testable hypothesis.

It is a curious thing to me that we can't compare the ethical system of, say, the Romans, with some that came later and were influenced by a particular theistic system.

I would suggest that notions like "Blessed are the poor" or "Blessed are the peacemakers" come from something other than selfish motives.

"Blessed are you who hunger now, because you will be filled."
"Blessed are you who mourn now, for you shall be comforted."

You can say that the expectation of some future reward motivates these values, but you can't say this expectation isn't based on a notion of a loving and just God who will provide the reward later.

You seem to be confused. No one is suggesting an ethical philosophy stems from atheism; rather, that formulating a coherent ethical system is entirely possible independent of a theistic framework. Kant was a theist, but I challenge you to show that the categorical imperative is not secular in nature.

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your last paragraph. Are you suggesting that your behavior would not be apt to change if God provided no future reward?

[Atticus]

Are you suggesting that your behavior would not be apt to change if God provided no future reward?I'm not speaking about myself at all. Each of the beatitudes asks for Christians to engage in an entirely selfless behavior (or suffer some current difficulty) and promises a later reward. My motivations are not the question here (and neither are yours). I'm only pointing out that this particular ethical system (one which influences us today) is not possible without a deity who promises a future reward.

Again, no one is denying that an ethical system without God is possible--I stipulated that in my first post. I only point out that particular kinds of ethics are not likely (perhaps not possible) without a God to back them up. I would suggest that "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst now" doesn't seen nearly as ridiculous to us today as it must have to the Romans, whose ethics were based entirely on notions of state, power, and earthly quid pro quo.

And my further question is whether an ethics of the kind I've just mentioned is possible to maintain without a belief in a God who can fulfill those promises.

[Lumpen Prole]

I apologize if I miscontrsued your position. However, I must say that I have little admiration for selfless behavior that exists simply because of a future reward. Such a behavior may be selfless on the surface and at present, but if it is being carried out because of a future reward to the individual performing it then I fail to see how it can be classified as a truly selflesss act.

Personally, I give always give whatever change is in my pocket to homeless people when I walk home. I'm an atheist and the act does not benefit me in the least, except perhaps by giving me a sense of gratitude for helping out someone who has less than me. I would think this behavior stands in the face of the notion that selfless behavior is only possible within a theistic framework.

[Atticus]

I apologize if I miscontrsued your position. However, I must say that I have little admiration for selfless behavior that exists simply because of a future reward. Such a behavior may be selfless on the surface and at present, but if it is being carried out because of a future reward to the individual performing it then I fail to see how it can be classified as a truly selflesss act.

Personally, I give always give whatever change is in my pocket to homeless people when I walk home. I'm an atheist and the act does not benefit me in the least, except perhaps by giving me a sense of gratitude for helping out someone who has less than me. I would think this behavior stands in the face of the notion that selfless behavior is only possible within a theistic framework.Perhaps. But here is the alternate hypothesis that I'm suggesting (and I know no way of testing it): You're sense of positive self-regard from your selfless act is motivated by the culture you live in--one that's been influenced for two thousand years by those beatitudes, among other things. Even if you yourself are not a theist, the values that you've grown accustomed to--independent of any theism--are, in fact, based on a (former?) theism whose values you learned. The key question is whether you would have the inpetus to give to that homeless person had you been nurtured in a different sort of culture--the ancient Roman one, for example.

My sense is that if you were an ancient Roman, you'd have had no such good feeling from your selfless behavior. Rather, such an action would have been seen as foolish and weak and would have been associated with feelings of shame. Right and wrong were based on notions of the good of the state or the power of the individual rather than on ideas like gratitude. To talk of selflessness and mercy--that was for slaves.

Thus, I think your motivations are based on the penumbra of theism that still exists in the culture that nurtured you. Further, I wonder if that kind of selflessness would disappear from our culture were the notion of theism to disappear because it's just a silly superstition supplanted by science.

[Lumpen Prole]

Perhaps. But here is the alternate hypothesis that I'm suggesting (and I know no way of testing it): You're sense of positive self-regard from your selfless act is motivated by the culture you live in--one that's been influenced for two thousand years by those beatitudes, among other things. Even if you yourself are not a theist, the values that you've grown accustomed to--independent of any theism--are, in fact, based on a (former?) theism whose values you learned. The key question is whether you would have the inpetus to give to that homeless person had you been nurtured in a different sort of culture--the ancient Roman one, for example.

My sense is that if you were an ancient Roman, you'd have had no such good feeling from your selfless behavior. Rather, such an action would have been seen as foolish and weak and would have been associated with feelings of shame. Right and wrong were based on notions of the good of the state or the power of the individual rather than on ideas like gratitude. To talk of selflessness and mercy--that was for slaves.

Thus, I think your motivations are based on the penumbra of theism that still exists in the culture that nurtured you. Further, I wonder if that kind of selflessness would disappear from our culture were the notion of theism to disappear because it's just a silly superstition supplanted by science.

If you ask me an untestable hypothesis isn't any more useful than no hypothesis at all. My behavior can be explained by appealing to the categorical imperative. And so there is no reason to attribute my actions to your alternative hypothesis (which you have admitted as being untestable). My action is morally permissible according to the categorical imperative, which is by nature secular no matter if it is applied by me or the Pope.

[Atticus]

If you ask me an untestable hypothesis isn't any more useful than no hypothesis at all. My behavior can be explained by appealing to the categorical imperative. And so there is no reason to attribute my actions to your alternative hypothesis (which you have admitted as being untestable). My action is morally permissible according to the categorical imperative, which is by nature secular no matter if it is applied by me or the Pope.Kant has always confused me. I find his ideas much like cotton candy--they evaporate quickly and I have to learn them all over again, so you'll pardon me if I ask you to plod--but why are is the categorical imperative secular by nature? Doesn't it spring from a notion of the (equal) value of human beings? Where does that odd notion come from?

[lawman]

Doesn't it spring from a notion of the (equal) value of human beings? Where does that odd notion come from?
Well, certainly not from anywhere in the Bible.

[Atticus]

Well, certainly not from anywhere in the Bible.Actually I would suggest it's in the New Testament. The whole concept of neighbor being not just one's near fellows but any person, even one considered (what we more recently have called) "the other," is embodied in parables like the Good Samaritan.

Lots of people seem to confuse the actions of many Christians with the teachings of Christ. They are often very different.

[Lumpen Prole]

Kant has always confused me. I find his ideas much like cotton candy--they evaporate quickly and I have to learn them all over again, so you'll pardon me if I ask you to plod--but why are is the categorical imperative secular by nature? Doesn't it spring from a notion of the (equal) value of human beings? Where does that odd notion come from?

Literally, pure reason. Kant asked what contribution pure reason makes to our world and the government of our actions. He employed two distinctions that apply to our judgements. First, the analytic/synthetic distinction, which concerns what makes a judgement true or false. A judgement is analytic if the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject; otherwise, the predicate adds something new to our conception of the subject and the judgement is synthetic. Analytic judgements are, roughly, true by defintion: when we say that a moon is a satellite of a planet we aren't reporting the results of some astronomical discovery, but explaining the meaning of a term.

The second distinction is the a priori/a posteriori, which concerns the way we know a judgement is true. A judgement is known a posteriori if it is known from experience, while it is known a priori if our knowledge of it is independent of any particular experience.

Putting the two distinctions together yields three possible types of judgement. If a judgement is analytically true then we know this a priori, and so there are no analytic a posteriori judgements. If a judgement is known a posteriori (from experience) it must be synthetic - the subject and the predicate are "synthesized" in our experience: we learn from experience that the sky is blue (as opposed to some other color) because we see that the sky and blueness are joined.

The remaining kind of judgement, synthetic a priori, is one which tells us something new about its subject, yet is known independent of experience; that is, on the basis of reasoning alone. If pure reason tells us anything substantial and important then what it tells us will take the form of synthetic a priori judgements. Kant concludes that if we have any moral requirements at all, then there must exist a metaphysics of morals - a body of synthetic a priori knowledge about the way we ought to act.

[Atticus]

Literally, pure reason. Kant asked what contribution pure reason makes to our world and the government of our actions. He employed two distinctions that apply to our judgements. First, the analytic/synthetic distinction, which concerns what makes a judgement true or false. A judgement is analytic if the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject; otherwise, the predicate adds something new to our conception of the subject and the judgement is synthetic. Analytic judgements are, roughly, true by defintion: when we say that a moon is a satellite of a planet we aren't reporting the results of some astronomical discovery, but explaining the meaning of a term.

The second distinction is the a priori/a posteriori, which concerns the way we know a judgement is true. A judgement is known a posteriori if it is known from experience, while it is known a priori if our knowledge of it is independent of any particular experience.

Putting the two distinctions together yields three possible types of judgement. If a judgement is analytically true then we know this a priori, and so there are no analytic a posteriori judgements. If a judgement is known a posteriori (from experience) it must be synthetic - the subject and the predicate are "synthesized" in our experience: we learn from experience that the sky is blue (as opposed to some other color) because we see that the sky and blueness are joined.

The remaining kind of judgement, synthetic a priori, is one which tells us something new about its subject, yet is known independent of experience; that is, on the basis of reasoning alone. If pure reason tells us anything substantial and important then what it tells us will take the form of synthetic a priori judgements. Kant concludes that if we have any moral requirements at all, then there must exist a metaphysics of morals - a body of synthetic a priori knowledge about the way we ought to act.Ok, and please don't mistake my trying to simplify things for a disrespect of your effort here--in fact, I'm pretty sure what I'm about to say will convince you I'm either playing unfairly or just plan thick headed, but it seems as though you're saying that something can exist a priori just because you thought it up.

How does this differ from, for example, the competing romantic notion (about the same time period) of "imagination?" The Romantics conceived of human reason as springing from a more elusive source they called "imagination," in which the distinction between what is "real" and what is only conceived appears blurred. The creative power of humans resides in this imagination, which is capable of conceiving in powerful ways but is not confined to reason. It's a conception that allows for the idea of "inspiration" that has traditionally been conceived as divine in origin (consider the invocation of the muse in ancient epics).

How does one distinguish between pure reason and imagination? How does one distinguish between pure reason and delusion? Questions surrounding the problem of knowing have always been difficult for me.

[Lumpen Prole]

Perhaps this will answer your question: triangles. Not a difficult concept. But how do we know triangles exist? Did we have to invent them? No; they exist a priori but must be realized through reasoning. The concept of a triangle exists independently from our existence, whether or not we recognize it. I can imagine something completely unreasonable or vocalize the idea of a square-circle, but what I can imagine doesn't determine what is reasonable.

Will that suffice?

[serenity]

Perhaps. But here is the alternate hypothesis that I'm suggesting (and I know no way of testing it): You're sense of positive self-regard from your selfless act is motivated by the culture you live in--one that's been influenced for two thousand years by those beatitudes, among other things. Even if you yourself are not a theist, the values that you've grown accustomed to--independent of any theism--are, in fact, based on a (former?) theism whose values you learned. The key question is whether you would have the inpetus to give to that homeless person had you been nurtured in a different sort of culture--the ancient Roman one, for example.

My sense is that if you were an ancient Roman, you'd have had no such good feeling from your selfless behavior. Rather, such an action would have been seen as foolish and weak and would have been associated with feelings of shame. Right and wrong were based on notions of the good of the state or the power of the individual rather than on ideas like gratitude. To talk of selflessness and mercy--that was for slaves.

I’m not so sure…but then, I’m not even sure whether, and how much, I agree or disagree with you! (Now there’s a conundrum.)

First of all, I think it’s clear enough that Christianity has influenced our ethics and morals. (And I personally agree with Vonnegut that if the Beatitudes, rather than the Commandments, were the subject of debate for placement in public places, it would suggest a very different world than the one we live in. Imagine the Christian Right fighting for the Beatitudes to be placed in public spaces—I personally consider the idea unthinkable. Interesting. I digress.) So yes, I imagine that the willingness or desire to give money away to the needy has a connection to Christianity. But then, Hindus give money to the needy in the streets of Mumbai as well.

Because empathy, compassion, and so on, even considered as real or imagined pre-requisites to being a “good person” was not generated whole cloth from Christianity. It’s a pre-existing human quality. The Romans would not, could not, have considered it alien or strange or, somehow, “weak,” as you seem to imply. Human beings are what they are. Different qualities can and do become emphasized. This happens all the time, within our own contemporary culture and society. But the qualities of compassion and mercy were of course already present in human beings. Else they wouldn’t be there now. You could no more introduce such qualities—which are innate to us as complex social beings—than you could suddenly teach us to fly. And yes, I mean that as an exact analogy, not a rhetorical exaggeration.

[Atticus]

So yes, I imagine that the willingness or desire to give money away to the needy has a connection to Christianity. But then, Hindus give money to the needy in the streets of Mumbai as well.Modern Hinduism has a lot in common with Christianity--just ask M. K. Gandhi. ANCIENT Hinduism was class-based and justified the persecution of lower castes and outcastes in a way we would find disgusting today.
Because empathy, compassion, and so on, even considered as real or imagined pre-requisites to being a “good person” was not generated whole cloth from Christianity. It’s a pre-existing human quality. The Romans would not, could not, have considered it alien or strange or, somehow, “weak,” as you seem to imply. I'd ask you to take a look at Roman ethics before you make such a sweeping statement. Providing and asking for mercy was considered "slave thinking." If you'd like to challenge me on that point, I'd be happy to read your sources and be tutored by you. Otherwise, I'll stand by my statement.Human beings are what they are. Different qualities can and do become emphasized. This happens all the time, within our own contemporary culture and society. But the qualities of compassion and mercy were of course already present in human beings. Else they wouldn’t be there now.But we aren't talking about the existence of these qualities--we're talking about their value. That's what ethics is--a value-system. If mercy and compassion were valued FOR THEMSELVES rather than as some larger quid pro quo, I'd like to see them. We certainly don't see them in the literature of the Greek or Roman world. Mercy meant nothing to Odysseus. He certainly would not have called it "twice blessed" and "the mightiest in the mightiest" as Shakespeare has Portia say in Merchant of Venice. Something changed.

And there ARE qualities of the human personality that go unrealized without cultural backing. Today, for example, we think of romantic love as ennobling and we think of the highest purpose of sexual love as leading each person to be a better human being. Societies where people do not pick their own mates find that an entirely alien concept.

You could no more introduce such qualities—which are innate to us as complex social beings—than you could suddenly teach us to fly. And yes, I mean that as an exact analogy, not a rhetorical exaggeration.Again, find evidence of this in the literature or history of the ancient world before Christianity and we'll have an argument.

[Lumpen Prole]

Atticus, I can give you examples of qualities such as empathy and compassion in present day non-human organisms as well as our own ancestors. If you're proposing that Christianity is the reason such qualities exist in human beings today... well, that's absurd in the highest degree.

[Atticus]

Atticus, I can give you examples of qualities such as empathy and compassion in present day non-human organisms as well as our own ancestors. If you're proposing that Christianity is the reason such qualities exist in human beings today... well, that's absurd in the highest degree.I'm suggesting that the system of thought, traceable in cultural artifacts as a consistent idea, of mercy as a value is remarkably absent in the ancient world.

[Lumpen Prole]

It's also remarkably absent today. :rolleyes:

[Atticus]

It's also remarkably absent today. :rolleyes:You're shifting ground. I think you are mistaking the actions of politicians and government leaders for cultural production. Leaders, whether emperors, kings or presidents, twist things to their own purposes--and always have.

[Lumpen Prole]

Do you mean to imply that Christianity is inherently more merciful than Jainism or Buddhism? Other cultures have promoted pacifism, veganism, harmony, etc. independent of and prior to the existence of Christianity... and without a blood-soaked history of torture and conquest (which, despite any positive cultural impacts Christianity or any other religion has had, we should not forget).

[Atticus]

Do you mean to imply that Christianity is inherently more merciful than Jainism or Buddhism? Other cultures have promoted pacifism, veganism, harmony, etc. independent of and prior to the existence of Christianity... and without a blood-soaked history of torture and conquest (which, despite any positive cultural impacts Christianity or any other religion has had, we should not forget).No, I'm saying that within the cultures it has reached, it has spread the notion of mercy and that notion has taken on a much more prominent role. Other faiths have done similar things in other places--though I think Jainism is far too much the minority to count a lot.

And there is no such thing as a vegan culture (vegetarian, yes; vegan no).

And the blood-soaked history of Christianity is really the history of its being co-opted by other elements of culture to their own purposes. The medieval notion of "Christ as Warrior King" is a conflation of Christian values with the older values of pagan warrior kings. The use of Christianity as a cover for imperial design starts with Constantine, is furthered by Charlemagne, and perfected by Spanish conquistadors (and no, Bush's most recent version is not lost on me). Did Jesus ever suggest that His Church should be a significant political force on Earth? I missed that part.

[serenity]

Modern Hinduism has a lot in common with Christianity--just ask M. K. Gandhi. ANCIENT Hinduism was class-based and justified the persecution of lower castes and outcastes in a way we would find disgusting today.


Certainly. In fact, it's still a problem, although it's become "officially wrong" (quotations mine). But surely you're not claiming that there was zero compassion and charity until Christianity was introduced????

I'd ask you to take a look at Roman ethics before you make such a sweeping statement. Providing and asking for mercy was considered "slave thinking." If you'd like to challenge me on that point, I'd be happy to read your sources and be tutored by you. Otherwise, I'll stand by my statement.

Wow. You are claiming that the Romans had no such concept as compassion, or empathy, or charity. I refute it--and you accuse me of making "a sweeping statement"?

On the contrary, since mine sounds lreasonable and your claim is counterintuitve (and since you made the first "sweeping" claim, not me), I believe you need to provide the sources.

But we aren't talking about the existence of these qualities--we're talking about their value. That's what ethics is--a value-system. If mercy and compassion were valued FOR THEMSELVES rather than as some larger quid pro quo, I'd like to see them. We certainly don't see them in the literature of the Greek or Roman world.

And there ARE qualities of the human personality that go unrealized without cultural backing. Today, for example, we think of romantic love as ennobling and we think of the highest purpose of sexual love as leading each person to be a better human being. Societies where people do not pick their own mates find that an entirely alien concept.

But romantic love has long been recognized; it had a sort of outlaw status, an idea rejuvenated (but not wholly original to) works like Romeo and Juliet, where sexual attraction becomes something much more romatically profound. Like I say, the idea itself was not something brand spanking new to the courtly love tradition, as some people oddly claim.

As for the Greeks, the gods were forever falling in love with hapless humans. More to the point, what about the Orpheus-Eurydice myth? It's made very clear that what we are talking about there is romantic love.

[Atticus]

Certainly. In fact, it's still a problem, although it's become "officially wrong" (quotations mine). But surely you're not claiming that there was zero compassion and charity until Christianity was introduced????For the third time in this thread, NO. They simply weren't considered virtues.
Wow. You are claiming that the Romans had no such concept as compassion, or empathy, or charity. I refute it--and you accuse me of making "a sweeping statement"?

On the contrary, since mine sounds lreasonable and your claim is counterintuitve (and since you made the first "sweeping" claim, not me), I believe you need to provide the sources.I didn't say they had none. I said they didn't respect them. It's not a scholarly source, but here's a start: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008291.html

[serenity]

But Atticus, that source doesn't rate. It's sheer speculation. For example, "Niceness was, I suspect, a Roman fact but also a Roman secret." Now, if you can explain to me how this is even one tiny, tiny whit more authoritative than my contradictory statements, I'd like to hear it. He even has the decency to add the proper qualifier, "I suspect."

I have little doubt about some of the claims: that cruelty wasn't clearly considered to be a bad thing, for example. That's probably true--it WAS a crueller era. On the other hand, such an embracing of this type of "virtue" would have to be extremely complex, and beset by all sorts of contradictions. Otherwise, nothing could ever get done. As the author of your piece also says,

Some of our more vocal commenters think that our world is ruled by sinister power grabbers, who know exactly what they are doing. I think, in contrast, that we are ruled by sentimentalities which vaguely indicate what would be nice, but a not nearly sufficient idea of how actually to contrive such niceness. The power grabbers are merely the insects that thrive in the resulting chaos, rather than the instigators of the chaos itself.

Now, I don't totally agree with this banality, which is at its core the idea that all intentions are, if not good, at least benign as we understand them. As if there's no greed, no power-as-tending-badly. I believe the truth really does lie, cliche-like, somewhere in between the two extremes (mad power-grabbers and "sentimentalities").

But, while obviously different, even in some fundamental ways (which is what you're arguing) the Roman polity and society simply could not function if all goodwill and empathy were considered a weakness, and had to be kept secret, in the manner of the great taboos.

No doubt such humane qualities contradicted the militaristic virtues (as many of our contemporary war fetishists complain about the "feminization" of society--and what a telling view of women this is!); but that was not Roman culture and society entire.

There were political compromises to be made;

trade and business to conduct;

there were friends and families, and the inherently unique aspects of multiple personalities with which to contend.

As for the literature, as it always was throughout all history until practically the 20th century--well, let's say that Shakespeare and Dickens were the exceptions, and that literature has always dealt primarily not only with elite perspectives, but also was usually quite openly obedient to State dictates.

(And yes, I'm aware that all kinds of artists have always managed to include subversion within literature...I'm aware of my oversimplification here. Shakespeare managed nicely to work around the expected restrictions; Blake too; and so on.)


I already said that I do believe there are aspects of Christianity, regarding peace, love, compassion, empathy and so on, that HAVE greatly influenced us.

I just don't believe that these things existed only as derided "weaknesses" before the Christian expansion. I'm not seeing it, certainly not in this (to be blunt) rather third-rate piece you've linked.