Moral imperatives to obey your creators

[jack]

Many people think morality should derive from your creator (A). I generally come across it on message boards where an intense religious debate would be off topic so I've never really explored it. It's probably obvious that I don't see it like that. Does anyone wish to correct me?

The idea of relying solely on my instincts for good and bad do terrify me -- some people are very wrong, why not me? (I do resolve to always pay attention and give utmost scrutiny to any majority view.) Yet handing over my judgement to someone else only terrifies me more.

Uranus supposedly came from Chaos, and imprisoned all his children, except Cronus, who escaped, and castrated him. Of course, Cronus did, well, almost exactly the same thing to Zeus. But, despite his later sins and the barbaric mannar of it, would A let overthrowing his father/creator be justified? Does it make a difference if the essentially primal god Uranus "created" him, or was only his father? Would the question be considered unaskable? Or does that fact that he did it suggest it's ok?

I don't think there's necessarily a universal good-and-bad we could define/discover, but I don't see why my sense of it should be constrained by my (hypothetical) creator's sense. Of course, most cerators might design their creations so they do do the right thing, by their definition. (Like the laws of robotics.) But if by mistake, or because they want something like free will, or for whatever other reason, it doesn't, shouldn't I use my sense?

Of course, I think my sense of right and wrong is a product of my evolution and upbringing. So? I drink if I'm thirsty. I help someone if I think it's right. When this innate sense has problems and I seek to extend it by my reason, what should I extrapolate from? Some people say, either seriously, or to demonstrate the undesirability of what they consider the only alternative to their god-derived or universal morality, "[I think] we are shaped by evolution. Hence my morals are an aspect of the perpetuation of my genes, so I should do everything I can to perpetuate my genes."

I don't have a logical reason for rejecting that choice, but I hate it. I extrapolate what I think is the good stuff. Why do I like pets? Probably my feelings are a relic of feelings that made ape(like) troops work together, and so survive. But then so are lots of things, and I accept them, quite apart from the futility of not knowing exactly which. So I go the other way. We shouldn't kill our children -- that makes sense evolutionarily. I say we extend that, we shouldn't kill our species, nor any other if we don't have to. Of course, a lot of the time we *do* have to, fine, we know that; and I'd put my species far first, but still minimise inter-special death and pain.

Comments

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

And what exactly is the best way to perpetuate your genes? to have lots of babies or to build a decent society in which your (fewer) children can prosper? I'm sure you know the rest of that argument, it's one I'm keen on.

I have a tendancy to conciously know an answer to a question before I know the solution which lead to the answer so I'm a lot happier going on the general feelings of "right" and "wrong", certainly I question them from time to time and try to work out the logic behind them but I don't see it as necessary for every situation.

There's a powerful if simplistic reason for obeying your creator in the begining at least: The power to create often has the pre-requisite of the power to destroy. Don't piss off God without good reason, he comes armed with Smiting.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I tried that, and he only seemed to be armed with Making Me Drop My Dinner On The Floor.

[mhw.livejournal.com]

Isn't that bad enough?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

It's far less bad than some of the things he visits on millions of children who've done nothing more than dare to be born female. Whatever anybody says he preached, I find the moral code God himself lives by to be abhorrent.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes. (Unless we're wrong about his powers; there could be a being who is a creator and a moral guider, but who can't affect our everyday lives.)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

In one of my least submissive and least respectful moments I defied God to turn me into a carrot. Nothing happened.

Maybe I wouldn't do that, but I'd certainly eat my dinner off the floor (especially if I could clean it first) in exchange for universal secrets of morality t m :)

Wait, didn't PTerry have a Gods=TablesToEatDinnerOff metaphor?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I still don't think I'd want to learn universal secrets of morality from a god who wanted me to eat my dinner off the floor for it.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, good point.

Well, I'd learn *something* from his *existance*. I think I wasn't so much thinking of buying it, as in, if that's the worst he'll do, I'll learn despite him :) Or maybe, I'll learn from him if floor-eating is somehow necessary, not just because he says so. Though I don't know how I would tell.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

But you know that making you eat off the floor, and the ensuing food poisoning you get, aren't the worst he'll do, because he makes worse happen to other people all the time.

In fact a lot of religious dogma has sound hygiene grounds; pork can incubate tapeworms beneath the skin, mixed wool/linen garments are impossible to clean properly, and shaving off all your body hair is a sensible thing to do if you're a desert tribe that rarely sees enough water to bathe in. But eating off the floor has the opposite. If god ordered you to eat off the floor if you wanted divine wisdom, then either he has a specific grudge against you and thinks it's funny to humiliate you, or all the other hygiene orders were written by humans and he never cared in the first place.

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

Thankyou, I now have the mental image of a crack team of angels tasked specifically with spilling food as divine punishment.

And I have to try not to laugh at my desk...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Every time you laugh, mutter "Haahhaha... so behind, so behind" and they'll understand :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

to have lots of babies or to build a decent society in which your (fewer) children can prosper?

Good point. Actually, I was aware of it, but don't remember you talking about it.

I have a tendancy to conciously know an answer to a question before I know the solution which lead to the answer so I'm a lot happier going on the general feelings of "right" and "wrong",

Indeed. I guess I'm thinking of times when they conflict, and you have to weigh up wrongs of, eg, not helping your child, breaking the law, damaging society, or whatever -- though you could say if they're close enough you can't tell you should just pick one.

The power to create often has the pre-requisite of the power to destroy. Don't piss off God without good reason, he comes armed with Smiting

Well, yeah. Some people are happy with this view. They say if they were on a little island away from everyone stronger than they were including God, they'd think it was ok to kill whoever they wanted. And assume I would too. I disagree; I think that, at least in theory, I would have a right and wrong in that situation.

[(Anonymous)]

we are a overpopulated world .. simply & realistically, the stats show the feeding/housing of every single human being in existence, to be an *impossibility*; frankly not even close. Should we not let the weak die "to build a decent society in which [our] fewer children can prosper?" As much as I would like to say no, it is far more logical to say yes. 8-S Yes would be the better answer... the more effective, the more efficent, and yes, the most 'cold'. But it certainly isn't a 'loveless' decision by any means - isn't providing a child with the means to succesfully survive and carry on our race of a higher merit, than the cruel crime of birthing weak beings who are inevitably doomed to a life of struggle and pain? I think so..

Besides what is good and bad anyway? The pointlessness and indeed nihlistic futility embodied in a question as numbingly painful and rhetorical as this can be overwhelming, and most us, if not blissfully unaware of such notions, wisely learn to distract from musing on this unanswerable topic. However, there *is* an answer (if you can call it that) and that is one of absolute, deafening Silence.
Silence is rare. Such silence will be preceeded with a noisy metaweb of frenzied conclusions and rethinkings, punctuated at every interval with bouts of lusious irritating, unsatisfying Doubt. It is only *then*, after years of going over this enigma from all possible angles, and when alone in one's room or in a quiet reflective spot somewhere, is one trully hit with the absolute answer that is Silence.
And even then, it's not really silence. You will hear the whirl of your brain slowing down because it realizes there is no logic in carring on. Doubt and Silence become synonmous at this point... and in this Postmodernist world, this ear shattering silence is the closest to an 'absolute truth' that you will encounter in your life... ever

^_^


Now go eat some chocolate and stop thinking about it !!!

[(Anonymous)]

Besides, God was a natural developement born out of our needy desire for an absolute truth (curse reality!); we all like to think there is a captain to this ship. So God was created by the weak to help the weak.

Later, the protocols changed, but the outcome remained the same:

God was thus perpetuated by the strong, to make them feel stronger, and to keep the weak believing their life has meaning; a clever system which keeps the weak working to form the foundation on which the strong stand, instead of, well, killing themselves! Which would be most logical.

"Real" "Strong" people know that God doesn't exist And don't 'need' to contruct him; however, their public face might be somewhat different, as to uphold the myth that God is for everyone and only through him can salvation be found. (Many Christian systems have even narrowed this down to Jesus and Jesus only. Then it starts to get ridiculous).

[(Anonymous)]

edit: "curse reality" ? - I meant to say "curse relativity!"

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Thinking thoughts will come tomorrow. But out of curiousity, if you don't mind me asking, who is that?

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

The problem with using classical examples is that the ancient Greeks and Romans had a hugely different moral code to that which exists in the post-Christian west (and Christianity *has* influenced the modern moral code of the west in so many ways - it's not all about being taught things as part of your religion, it's also about ideas being concretised in e.g. law). Zeus' rebellion against Cronos was essentially seen as a 'good thing' because he won by employing superior strength and cunning. But, because he was a god, it was also as if his deed/crime didn't apply to humanity - classical religion didn't have the concept of the gods being like humans (like e.g. Christianity does), and in fact it'd probably be a case of hubris if you thought the rules applied to gods also apply to you.

Parricide was one of the worst crimes you could possibly commit in Roman and Greek law - cf. Cicero's Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino. But I don't know if this was because killing your father just seems a bad thing to do - it was probably more to do with undermining the natural order of supremacy within a family (the family arguably being the most important institution in the ideal classical world - cf. Augustus' reforms).

For my part, I believe that some things are just right or wrong (like killing people - I refuse to believe that all people who have killed people didn't think twice about it, unless they have a mental problem) and you sort of know, but whether you're willing to comply with that is another thing entirely. And the rest is culturally conditioned - it's not just the old cannibal debate. You can be as atheist as you like, you've still got your moral code from the Christian Church ;)

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. I'm thoroughly atheist, and my moral code comes directly from Siddharta and Confucius, who lived six centuries before there could ever have been a Christian Church.

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

I was addressing cartesiandaemon. I don't know you and have no idea what background has shaped your morality.

Did you grow up in the Far Easy then, to be influenced by Siddharta and Confucius? Or are you e.g. a Buddhist who grew up in Britain?

And do you think that a moral code as based on Siddharta and Confucius is very different from that concretised in countries with a predomi9nantly Judaeo-Christian background?

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

*falls about laughing* Far Easy is *so* the best typo I've ever made!

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

True. I was using the myth as an example of "What do *you* think"; I don't know what the greeks would have thought. I find a lot of behaviour of the greek gods, if taken literally, awful; but it's natural that myths like that happen, or if they were real, I get the impression it would be more complicated than that.

in fact it'd probably be a case of hubris if you thought the rules applied to gods also apply to you.

Yeah. But if that were so, I'd think it walks like a twat, and talks like a twat, and throws thunderbolts as athiest like a twat, I'm inclined to the belief that it *is* a twat, and if it wants me to trust it, it need demonstrate that.

I don't *like* that, but what else can I do? If I voice appears in my heart, how can i know if it's God or Satan or something else, except by judging if it seems good to me?

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

But why do some things seem good to you and others not? Do you think you have a unique view of morality? Is there any other choice than *either* it's innate *or* it's environmentally conditioned?

Indeed, is this anything other than the naturalness of language debate dressed up as something else?!

But why do some things seem good to you and others not?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

But why do some things seem good to you and others not?

What do you mean? How did I decide? By what I felt. Or what, in my best interpretation of the evidence, led to me feel like that? As you say, a combination of evolution and cultural mores. But I don't think that's what you were asking.

Is there any other choice than *either* it's innate *or* it's environmentally conditioned?

I think that's what it is. (Plus a random factor.)

But some people would assert a universal morality. You missed the cts meeting *hug* but in that world, there *is* an objective good: what Eru thinks makes a good song. It's *possible* such exists here. Though I'd still be forced to use my personal morality because I couldn't help it.

Indeed, is this anything other than the naturalness of language debate dressed up as something else?!

What do you mean?

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

If I actually believed in a variety of Christianity involving eternal torment for the sinful, I think I would try to do whatever I thought God wanted me to do, regardless of how evil it might seem to me personally. Pretty much any bad thing I might do would be justified by the desire to escape eternal suffering (and indeed, the bad things I might do to others couldn't be as unpleasant as the bad things God could do to me :-)

Fortunately I don't believe in such a religion (or any other sort of religion), and tend to view my morality as entirely equivalent to my personal preferences in e.g. food or music: I refrain from killing living things as far as possible because it makes me feel happier to do so; I refrain from eating peas because I dislike their taste; I avoid country and western music because it sounds ghastly to me. I don't see that any of these preferences have an absolute truth, out there in the universe (where would it come from?): peas aren't intrinsically nasty; country and western isn't intrinsically crap; killing living things isn't intrinsically evil (because nothing is intrinsically evil). My preferences probably derive from a combination of genetics (including evolutionary motivations to behave in ways promoting my survival) and upbringing/experience in this particular culture.

This means I can't sensibly try to reason about new areas of morality or persuade someone else of the correctness of my viewpoint. (I do, however, sometimes attempt to do this informally - but I don't really feel I have any underlying philosophical support for doing so!) All I can do is examine my feelings in a particular situation, and act in the way which makes me feel most mentally comfortable.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

If I actually believed in a variety of Christianity involving eternal torment for the sinful, I think I would try to do whatever I thought God wanted me to do, regardless of how evil it might seem to me personally.

Yeah. What else could you do? But while technically doing do so is the *best* thing to do, I wouldn't consider it very *good*.

A comparison is a Buddha who postpones his own enlightenment to guide others; there is a case where accepeting the spiritual reward isn't considered overarchingly good.

Fortunately I don't believe in such a religion (or any other sort of religion), and tend to view my morality as entirely equivalent to my personal preferences in e.g. food or music:

Yes. See something slightly similar at Robhu's link to Russel and C. discussing the existance of God, and Russel comparing morality to colour-vision: I see this is yellow, I see this as good, he is colour-blind, he is evil.

But: other people can listen to whatever music they like. And think whatever they like. But if I can I'll stop them *acting* if they think killing foo is ok and I don't.

(I do, however, sometimes attempt to do this informally - but I don't really feel I have any underlying philosophical support for doing so!

Indeed. Another post I made was considering how much of what we think is about concentrating on the most efficient means of implementing a better world we -- mostly -- agree on. Eg (v.simplified): we all want a healthy economy, but are high taxes and spending or low taxes and spending better for it?

There, I can argue rationally. But when we disagree about assumptions (eg. relative worth of two individuals) I'm still unfortunately obligated by my morals to get other people to abide by them, and an easy way to do so is to persuade them to adopt them. Without common premises it's building a bridge without foundation, but common methods are to argue by analogy, or to stress the feelings they have that do align with mine but are outweighed in them, or to propose it as an inevitable and universal compromise.

[simont]

tend to view my morality as entirely equivalent to my personal preferences in e.g. food or music

I think the biggest difference is whether you consider any given preference worth trying to impose on other people. If you saw me eating peas you presumably wouldn't have any particular interest in persuading me not to, but if you saw me attempting to kill an innocent person I would expect that you'd at least want to stop me (regardless of whether or not your risk assessment actually impelled you to try it).

[(Anonymous)]

yup, I would agree with that

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

I mean that I see them as equivalent in where they come from i.e. personal taste, rather than having some absolute validity outside of my own head. While I might indeed want to stop you killing someone, this would be because it would make me feel happier to do so. I wouldn't be able to tell you not to do it "because killing is Wrong"; I could only tell you not to do it "because it upsets me".

And actually I'm not sure there is a clear distinction of the sort you describe between moral and aesthetic preferences (for me, anyway). On some level, I do want other people to share my aesthetic preferences: I find it mildly disturbing to think of my friends enjoying peas and country music :-) And equally I have some moral preferences which I would hardly wish to impose on other people e.g. vegetarianism, not smoking, childlessness.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Ignoring the possibility of mandating leguphilia, I guess we're not equating "me liking peas" with "me not killing people" but "me liking peas" with "no-one killing people."

But we find it useful to define a morality we think everyone should have, otherwise it'd be too confusing...

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

I think I'm equating "peas are unpleasant, IMO" with "killing people/people being killed is unpleasant, IMO". Obviously I feel more strongly about the latter preference than the former! In each case, I feel it applies primarily to me (I would be more troubled by having to eat peas than by having to watch someone else eat peas; I suspect I would be more upset to have to kill someone than to have to watch someone else kill that same person) and I would probably only feel inclined to try to impose my preferences on someone else in the most extreme cases, where allowing someone else to do that thing would cause me great unhappiness. I think only a small number of my moral preferences reach this threshold, and probably none of my aesthetic preferences (though I note that our society occasionally mandates issues of aesthetics alone e.g. local councils refusing planning permission for modifications to private houses which would be "unsightly" or "damage the traditional character of the street" - surely we would not regard, say, garish pink walls in the midst of a row of thatched cottages as actually Evil!).

Voting is a case which has sometimes exercised my thoughts - why am I trying to impose my personal moral/aesthetic preferences on other people in this way? But the idea of not voting feels somewhat immoral to me in itself (I would feel guilty and lazy if I didn't do this thing which many people in the past fought to allow me to do), and anyway, I never vote for parties that have a hope in hell of actually winning :-)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

OK, we seem to have quite different starting points, I'm sorry I didn't realise before.

You seem like you would like everyone to dislike peas, but don't want to impose that. Whereas I don't mind if they like peas or not. (It'd be a bit tidier if everyone liked the same things, but less interesting.)

Much regulation and etiquette seems to be finding a balance where our preferences mutually impinge. I think murder is the victim's business, so want to prevent the murder imposing his opinion, so I'm forced to impose that decision on him. I think eating peas isn't. I think painting your house pink arguably causes enough aggravation to people having to look at it that you must restrain.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

I take the evolutionary answer, despite the fashionable tendency to make up behaviouralist 'just-so' stories to supply a post-facto theoretical foundation to the interesting anecdote of the day.

Bluntly, 'moral' behaviour is whatever action or attitude helps maintain a stable and harmonious band of hunter-gatherer primates, with particular reference to keeping 'free-rider' behaviour below the threshold at which it damages the interests of the group as a whole more than it benefits that group to allow an individual his or her freedom of action and personal profit.

How all that is 'measured' is a moot point: successful societies - be they grooming apes, commodity trading floors, or religious communities with shunning rituals and branding - are those societies in which a stable equilibrium emerges between the competing trends in behaviour and motivation.

The corollary is, of course, that some communities have 'moral' behaviours that would be repugnant to you or I - but if they work, if the individuals in them are happy (that is to say, that the defection rate or a progressive decline in breeding doesn't lead to extinction) then that society is indeed moral.

Bluntly, 'moral' behaviour is whatever ... helps maintain a stable and harmonious band...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I quite follow you. Are you saying we *should* behave to make our society successful, or we *do*? Or isn't there a difference?

The corollary is, of course, that some communities have 'moral' behaviours that would be repugnant to you or I - but if they work, if the individuals in them are happy (that is to say, that the defection rate or a progressive decline in breeding doesn't lead to extinction) then that society is indeed moral.

I accept much morality is situational. Sometimes much killing is unfortunately necessary, though I'd strive to eliminate it if I could.

I can envisage lots of societies where not breeding or leaving doesn't work, but people could be a lot happier. Are not supposed to make those happier? Or if we're stable should we start hedging against increasingly unlikely society-disasters?

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a reglious friend. They believed that even if they personally disagreed with their religion they should still do as it said, as that's what their God wanted them to do and hence 'right'. I maintained it was better to do what you thought was right than do something you considered to be wrong. It basically got down to even if a 'creator' did genuinely pop up tomorrow and start telling you what was good/bad in person, would you be happy blindly doing as you were told or would you still fell you had the responsibility of deciding for yourself?

Pets are cute. What's not to like? :-)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

It basically got down to even if a 'creator' did genuinely pop up tomorrow and start telling you what was good/bad in person, would you be happy blindly doing as you were told or would you still fell you had the responsibility of deciding for yourself?

Yes.

At least if you can establish where you disagree you know; that is considerable progress.

And of course, there's the *is* it god problem? If eg. satan can part the clouds and speak in a booming voice, can you know except by what he says?

Pets are cute. What's not to like? :-)

Someone at CTS said, "If we're not supposed to be cannibals, why did he make humans out of meat?"

(How do you feel today?)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

The reluctant cannibal was at CTS?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Bwahaha! I'd never seen that. But no, one of the non-reluctant, indeed gleeful, ones.

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

The discussion assumed you could tell it *was* god. I finally convinced him I was unconvertable as even if presented with proof that he was right I still wouldn't want to part of organised religion.

(the lurgi still has me)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

No? If I was convinced there was a God, and the various ills in the world weren't his fault, and he was good, and so forth, I'd sign up.

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

Defining good is the problem. The chances of a God popping up who belives exactly the same as you do on all moral questions, complete with fence sitting?

Though if it did happen you'd be entitled to the biggest "I told you so" ever :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Um. Good point. But people followed Gandhi, without necessarily agreeing with him on every single point, couldn't you follow a God the same way?

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

Er...No.

Firstly I don't generally think following things is a Good Idea.
Secondly, Gandhi isn't an even comparison as he was a man and not infallible, which I believe gods are usually supposed to be.

Plus I don't think he was renowned for threatening people with a good smiting if they didn't obey him :-)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Firstly I don't generally think following things is a Good Idea.

Well, I have a great horror of handing my decisions to someone else, in case they're evil or not real. But if they *have* earned my trust, then it does make sense to define myself in terms of them, with codicils if necessary, rather than establishing myself completely from scratch.

And I was supposing God was as vindictive as he appears to some people. I don't know exactly how. But if so, it'd feel good to me.

[(Anonymous)]

'Cuteness' (as with carefully crafted Japanese Anime, progressed over years & years) is essentially a form of semi-sexual, semi-platonic seduction, which wins the one parading it, with food and shelter.

Pets are cute for a reason, & thus,
Pets have become Pets for a reason

Pretty clever really... ;)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I would have compared pets to babies in terms of the way we like them. It seems an obvious (and non-sexual) equivalence.

[(Anonymous)]

apart from those little dogs that bite your knee caps 8-O

I don't like those much :/


wolves, however, are gorrrgeous!

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

Pekingese are more like fluffy rats than dogs but they bounce for your throat :-)

Wolves are lovely, but I doubt any but Diefenbeker from Due South make good pets!

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yay, another fan. Lucy made me promise to like it :)