An educated man decides to travel around the world. After going to many places and seeing many things he ends up in a small coastal village where he is invited to eat by the local shaman.
The shaman is a perfect host and after eating they begin to discuss various things about the village and nature.
Inevitably the conversation turns to the ocean.
“Ah, yes.” the shaman begins “The Ocean Goddess is a wonderful being. Through her grace we can sail without fear of wrecking, fish in safety, and sleep without worry of hurricane. For everything from the tides to the currents is within her power. All we have to do to ensure her favor is keep to the proper rituals and make the correct sacrifices.”
This gives the educated man pause.
“Surely” the educated man says slowly, “you must have heard that the moon controls the tide, and that the currents are caused by wind and heat and a dozen other natural things. There is no Goddess that directs these things, only natural processes.”
The face of the shaman tightens into a scowl. He points a single finger at his guest.
You are an evil man,” the shaman hisses. “You would make the ocean into an evil thing. If you got your way the ocean would care nothing for our prayers, our rituals, our sacrifices. Storms would arise without warning, boats would capsize for reasons other than lack of faith.”
“In fact” he continues “it is because of men like you that we still have storms, still lose ships to the tides. If it wasn't for men like you the ocean would never kill anyone. You should be ashamed.”
Not knowing what else to say the educated man leaves the house.
7 comments:
It would help if you gave a link to the post to which you're responding as I've touched on this subject more than once. Can do?
Your reply is not about objective morality but about explanations of the natural order. Scratch an Englishman and don't be surprised if you find an animist underneath.
People try to make out that the Ten Commandments to be inconsistent - Thou shalt not kill vs war etc. They miss the point that the last six commandments are about social behaviour within the community of the Chosen People - Jesus was more than once reluctant to use his healing powers for non-Jews. The first four are rules with respect to behaviour towards God who protects the Chosen People (as a whole). Since he is also held to be the Creator of All his laws are objectively binding - it's His universe and He made every atom of our bodies. We have no freedom do make the rules.
Now take out that last and moral rules are optional. They are no more than what we feel or (as Bertrand Russell said) have been taught by Nanny. If everyone agrees to the rules then social harmony is possible; but an individual who does not agree can use this against his compliant fellows; he will be wise to pretend to believe the same things but can take opportunities denied them by their inhibitions. The worst of mankind understand this, with a conscious rejection of social rules as applying to themselves - Mao was a teacher, Stalin a trainee priest, Che a doctor. I suspect that there are some among the Republican hierarchy who have this nihilism at heart (actually some Dems as well - ones who pretend to care for the People but...)
'Alexander' replies;
As to comparing objective morality vs the natural order. Well if morality was truly objective it would be a clearly defined part of the natural order would it not? An objective moral rule would be something to be studied, measured, tested, instead of simply discussed endlessly. Simply put, morality and physics are not treated the same, and that is a point against objective morality.
Now let's take your point about the Ten Commandments. Several things stand out. Is a moral law/action only objectively moral when ordered by a God? Does this apply to every God in human history? When a God of the Greek Pantheon descends to impregnate a human maiden without her knowledge is that an Objective Moral Good? How powerful does a being have to be for their teachings and actions to be objectively moral? There are hundreds of cults and religions around the world whose leaders are either worshiped as Gods or claim to be some kind of divine messenger, should we treat every single one as arbiters of Objective Morality? Or is the Christian God special? How would we prove that the Christian God is unique and special? How do we differentiate between the direct word of a God and humans who just pretend to speak in their name?
Not to mention as you yourself point out, most of the rules in the bible apply to the Jews specifically (in the old testament at the bare minimum). Does this mean that for people not of the Jewish/christian faiths or Jewish descent the rules do not apply to us? How do we tell apart the rules that are only for Jews and those meant for the rest of humanity? Why did that God only inform those specific people in that specific time if these rules are more widespread than that? Plus you have to believe in the God in the first place, which erases every single one of the hundreds of thousands of Gods from human history each with their own Moral Laws.
Finally as you mention several times the rules ARE optional. If a human commits the most morally depraved acts imaginable they will not be stopped by anything other than other humans. If these Moral Laws exist beyond humans why do they only manifest through human intervention? Also why do humans disagree so much? If you go from household to household EVEN IN THE SAME SOCIETY there will be people with wildly different moral standards and ideals. Some for example believe that all drug addicts should be placed in prison while others believe it is a perfectly normal activity which is not wrong at all.
You imply that if people recognized that Morality is subjective they will discard it entirely in favor of purely selfish motives. Indeed some do, but we developed a system of law specifically to stop these individuals in the name of public protection. As for social harmony, what social harmony? Societies are chaotic violent things that are constantly twisting and mutating. Humans constantly create conflict for ourselves as the politics of any small peaceful town will attest (seriously look up the outrageous behavior that occurs at PTA meetings). A person believing they are in the Objective Moral Right seems to have little bearing on if they get along with their neighbors, it only seems to impact the excuse they give for why their strife is justified. To use an overused example the WITCH TRIALS WERE CONDUCTED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY! Humans will literally BURN OTHER HUMANS TO DEATH while convinced that it is an Objective Good because they think the people they are burning practiced magic.
From where I am sitting Objective Morality just seems like a way the people who defined those Morals in the first place avoided criticism.
I suppose if I don't answer now it'll be a long time before I get around to it so here's a first go.
PART ONE
***As to comparing objective morality vs the natural order. Well if morality was truly objective it would be a clearly defined part of the natural order would it not? An objective moral rule would be something to be studied, measured, tested, instead of simply discussed endlessly. Simply put, morality and physics are not treated the same, and that is a point against objective morality.***
'Morality and physics are not treated the same, and that is a point against objective morality.' That doesn't follow. Physics describes the natural order (as best it can); moral philosophy deals with how we should behave and why. Hume said there was a gap between 'is' and 'ought' and as far as I know no logician has crossed the gap. We can describe what people think is right and wrong, and give explanations as to why (e.g. evolutionarily adaptive, tends to help the survival of the species/subspecies) - but that doesn't have the force of 'you should.'
***Now let's take your point about the Ten Commandments. Several things stand out. Is a moral law/action only objectively moral when ordered by a God? Does this apply to every God in human history? When a God of the Greek Pantheon descends to impregnate a human maiden without her knowledge is that an Objective Moral Good? How powerful does a being have to be for their teachings and actions to be objectively moral? There are hundreds of cults and religions around the world whose leaders are either worshiped as Gods or claim to be some kind of divine messenger, should we treat every single one as arbiters of Objective Morality? Or is the Christian God special? How would we prove that the Christian God is unique and special? How do we differentiate between the direct word of a God and humans who just pretend to speak in their name?***
As above. If morality is not objective then it is subjective. Yes there are many religions, though most would agree with the last six Commandments I think. As to the Christian (Jewish) God being special, early in the Bible he is talked about as being one of many but the top one. Religions and political philosophies have a tendency to be exclusionary - I think it's to do with what Christopher Booker called 'groupthink' - as the Amazon entry says, 'the adoption of a common view or belief not based on objective reality; the establishment of a consensus of right-minded people, an 'in group'; and the need to treat the views of anyone who questions the belief as wholly unacceptable.' https://www.amazon.co.uk/Groupthink-Study-Delusion-Christopher-Booker/dp/1472959051 The Taliban blew up the great statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in 1996, but somewhere in the Bible is also the instruction to pull down the pillars set up by the pagans. In your fable the scientist wags his finger at the shaman but there are no more shamans in Siberia; they were eradicated by the Communist government in favour of the true belief of dialectical materialism / Marxism-Leninism. Btw much of logic mathematics and science owes its development to members of the Church (who else had the time and could read? Up to King Alfred, English kings were illiterate) and before them the Druids.
PART TWO
***Not to mention as you yourself point out, most of the rules in the bible apply to the Jews specifically (in the old testament at the bare minimum). Does this mean that for people not of the Jewish/christian faiths or Jewish descent the rules do not apply to us? How do we tell apart the rules that are only for Jews and those meant for the rest of humanity? Why did that God only inform those specific people in that specific time if these rules are more widespread than that? Plus you have to believe in the God in the first place, which erases every single one of the hundreds of thousands of Gods from human history each with their own Moral Laws.'***
'Does this mean that for people not of the Jewish/christian faiths or Jewish descent the rules do not apply to us?' Depends; we may have a parallel ethical code derived separately. But the extension of the Jewish faith to non-Jews was I think set out by Saint Paul who said non-Jews - the uncircumcised - could be circumcised in the spirit, that is, could become members without the ritual of the briss. As I said earlier, it seems that Jesus did not, at least at first, see his teaching and healing as applicable to outsiders; he was a reformer of the Jewish faith, revealing the underlying principles of the Law and redefining the people's relationship with God as a personal, quasi-familial connection rather than as mere servants. Paul made this a universal option. So much of war and oppression has come from the tribal-territorial 'us and them', hasn't it?
***Finally as you mention several times the rules ARE optional. If a human commits the most morally depraved acts imaginable they will not be stopped by anything other than other humans. If these Moral Laws exist beyond humans why do they only manifest through human intervention? Also why do humans disagree so much? If you go from household to household EVEN IN THE SAME SOCIETY there will be people with wildly different moral standards and ideals. Some for example believe that all drug addicts should be placed in prison while others believe it is a perfectly normal activity which is not wrong at all.***
For some humans, nothing seems to stop them indulging in depravity, other than the fear of being caught and punished. But for many others the inhibitions can be instilled by regular teaching/repetition and example. Your last point is a complex one as those who want to be allowed drugs have argued that no-one else is harmed, which is obviously not true; or that what matters is 'freedom' (I'm not sure self-indulgence and addiction are freedom.) Some preventers advocate prison (which is also full of drugs, I read), others, treatment; they are not mutually exclusive and the success rate in 'curing' addicts is low, so legalisation might well result in a great expansion of numbers of addicts who cannot be cured. The ones arguing for legalisation take drugs anyway, they just don't want to fall foul of the authorities, be 'hassled by the Man.'
PART THREE
***You imply that if people recognized that Morality is subjective they will discard it entirely in favor of purely selfish motives. Indeed some do, but we developed a system of law specifically to stop these individuals in the name of public protection. As for social harmony, what social harmony? Societies are chaotic violent things that are constantly twisting and mutating. Humans constantly create conflict for ourselves as the politics of any small peaceful town will attest (seriously look up the outrageous behavior that occurs at PTA meetings). A person believing they are in the Objective Moral Right seems to have little bearing on if they get along with their neighbors, it only seems to impact the excuse they give for why their strife is justified. To use an overused example the WITCH TRIALS WERE CONDUCTED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY! Humans will literally BURN OTHER HUMANS TO DEATH while convinced that it is an Objective Good because they think the people they are burning practiced magic.***
As above, law and the fear of consequences constrain many, But what is the moral basis of the Law? Or is it simply arbitrary power?
I don't know about PTA meetings but groups are pretty terrible anyway. Imagine a coach tour where the passengers had to vote on where to go. I begin to have my doubts about 'democracy' and to judge by GOP types who jigger the voting system and Dems who flood the country with migrants to bolster their own Party's support, I don't think the System believes in it either.
Witch trials - yup (please don't use caps, it's like shouting); we're back to There Is Only One Truth, plus groupthink because at heart we fear there may not be.
As to burning: just because you don't like the consequences it doesn't necessarily mean the principle is wrong; what about the WWII use of flame-throwers in the defence of 'democracy' and 'freedom'?
***From where I am sitting Objective Morality just seems like a way the people who defined those Morals in the first place avoided criticism.***
Yes, from one point of view it is about power. 'Because God said so; because Il Duce says so; because Der Fuehrer wishes it; because the President says so.' 'Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.' But from another, it is about the desire of people to have a narrative, a mythos that gives meaning and direction to their lives:
'And Nehemiah, who was the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn nor weep.” For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law.' https://biblehub.com/nehemiah/8-9.htm - not tears of boredom, as my wife mischievously suggests!
Liberalism is tough - it's like the cartoon meme of legs whirling as you hang in mid-air having run off the cliff. It lasts until a moron with a machine gun is let loose on you.
JD comments:
If Alexander was being serious perhaps he should read some of this archived blog from the late Iain Carstairs, he might learn something - https://web.archive.org/web/20161114212058/https://iaincarstairs.wordpress.com/about/
In reply to JD. I would add, I think reading some of Yogananda's writings might also help clarify the nature of things.
You introduced me to both of these authors :-)
Post a Comment