Good Without God— How?
Recently in the comments of this post, blogger Althusius challenged me to explain my moral foundation. My initial response was to ask him a series of questions, to which he gave fairly typical fundamentalist Christian responses. In this post, I finally answer his question directly.
Althusius,
OK, I’ve heard enough. I’m ready to answer your question: “By what standard can you say that anything you do is good?”
My basis for knowing what is good is often called the Golden Rule. It is also known as the Ethic of Reciprocity. Although it is stated a couple of different ways in the Bible, the Golden Rule far pre-dates Christianity and is stated in many wisdom texts from cultures around the world. It is obviously as ancient as human societies, and probably even pre-dates humanity as we know it. (Since I know you are a Young-Earth Creationist, I don’t expect you to agree that there was a time before humanity as we know it, but that is beside the point, which is that Christianity has nothing original to offer humanity in its re-statement of the Golden Rule.)
Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and many other religions besides) corrupt the Golden Rule by adding layer upon layer of superstition, dogma, sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry to an otherwise simple and beautiful idea: treat others with the level of respect that you would like to receive.
The wisdom of the Golden Rule only requires a little thought to understand: humans live with other humans in societies. If I do not live by the Golden Rule then the suffering of others increases, and inevitably the increasing suffering of others increases my own suffering. In extreme cases society itself breaks down and suffering increases exponentially. There are no known cases where society broke down or wars were started because people were too respectful of others. So even from a purely selfish position, it pays to treat others well. Acknowledgment of any given deity or its whims is not necessary to come to this essentially game-theoretic conclusion.
Based on your answers to my questions, I judge you, Althusius, to be morally corrupt, i.e., depraved. Here is my analysis:
• Even though you aver that it is currently wrong to stone disrespectful children, you also allow that it was moral behavior at one time. By the Golden Rule, since I would not wish to be the victim of physical violence in return for mere disrespect, it is therefore wrong to inflict physical harm on anyone in return for mere disrespect. This kind of application of principle does not appear and disappear with epochs of deity-inflicted “judicial law,” as you believe— it is simply the right way to treat other humans in all times and places.
• You say the Bible promotes “merciful treatment of [slaves].” You’d like to use the word “servants,” but we are not talking about English butlers here: we are talking about people being sold as property to the highest bidder, with no name, no possessions, and no rights. Ephesus, where Paul addressed his letter, was in Greece, where chattel slavery was commonly practiced. People were also commonly kidnapped, captured, or born into slavery, and it’s quite unlikely Paul was unaware of this. But even well-treated slaves are still slaves, and paid slavery is not at-will employment— it doesn’t even rise to the level of indentured servitude— yet you use the modern euphemism “servanthood” as if you were making chitchat about respectable career options! Weasel words aside, we are talking about people owning people, which Jesus and Paul not only did not “focus” on (as you delicately put it,) but (if we are to judge from the Bible) tolerated with equanimity— and which apparently you would also do. Is there a single scripture in the Holy Bible (your moral foundation) that categorically condemns slavery? There is not, although there are many that regulate it, and generations of Christians have used this fact to condone slavery of both the “nice” variety you seem to approve of as well as the most atrocious. The Golden Rule simplifies things dramatically: as I do not wish to be treated as property, I will not treat others as property nor condone this activity in others.
• Just over half of humanity is female. Half of the bodies. Half of the minds. Half of the energy. Yet, you see this half of humanity as inherently undeserving of the same opportunities in life that you think your deity confers upon the other half— your half. When doling out opportunities you ignore individual aptitudes such as intelligence, curiosity, ambition, knowledge, character, maturity, leadership ability, stamina, and strength; and instead focus on a single trait: gender. You narcissistically see women as extensions of men, subject to the same sort of control a driver has over a car. The only possible way you can go on believing you hold to the Golden Rule, which says to treat (love, respect) others (”your neighbor”) as yourself is to establish a double-standard that doesn’t even let women rise to the standard of other. And the only reason you let yourself get away with such an egregious, dehumanizing moral violation is that you believe the primitive mythological stories in the Bible to be the word of an infallable deity (who is, unsurprisingly, male.)
Althusius, I’m sure you’re a nice guy in person and a productive member of society (and therefore not utterly depraved.) But I’m positive I could continue digging and come up with many other aspects of your morality that are just as questionable, when judged by the standard of the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule is not inflexible dogma, but neither is it moral relativism. It is an application of our essential ability to “step outside” ourselves and view the world through another’s eyes. The Golden Rule is also perfectly consistent with evolution, because species that collect in societies must practice reciprocity to survive and flourish.
It is by the Golden Rule that I know what is good. And I am, as I said, good without God.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I’ve been anxiously waiting for your response to Althusius…it was worth the wait, nice!
January 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
How do you know the Golden Rule is right? How can you judge other people’s actions? The only thing you can do with a “standard” like that, is judge your own actions. It’s too weak to extend to other people.
If the Golden Rule is the standard, what about people who have a very low view of themselves? Criminals don’t care enough not to commit crimes. They treat people like they treat themselves. Is this right? How can you say otherwise?
January 26th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Slingpaw,
OK, if not by the Golden Rule, then how do you know what you do is right?
Judging the actions of others is an imprecise activity— new information can come to light at later times that yields different judgments. But often we must judge others to make sense of the world.
People with a low view of themselves esteem themselves much lower than others— this is not in keeping with the Golden Rule, which says to give others the same level of respect you want for yourself. Similarly, criminals go the opposite way, esteeming themselves much higher than others.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:01 am
To Slingpaw’s comment:
If someone really wanted to, they could ask, “How do you know anything is right?” from here unto the end of time. This seems a bit like nit picking to me.
I think as a standard for making the best decision in any given moment (without having “all” the facts) is to follow the Golden Rule. I might add that as with any rule there are always exceptions. Seems you might favor pitching the baby out with the bathwater because of those very same exceptions.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
OK, if not by the Golden Rule, then how do you know what you do is right?
By the Bible, the ultimate standard laid down by the Ruler of the universe.
But often we must judge others to make sense of the world.
But what do those judgments accomplish? Nothing besides putting people into categories for your use. They do nothing to guide other people on how they should live. They have no authority to do so.
this is not in keeping with the Golden Rule, which says to give others the same level of respect you want for yourself.
People who have a low view of themselves give others the same low level of respect they want for themselves. You still didn’t answer Slingpaw’s question.
If someone really wanted to, they could ask, “How do you know anything is right?” from here unto the end of time. This seems a bit like nit picking to me.
That’s not nit picking, it’s asking for an ultimate standard, since all other types don’t work. If you don’t like philosophical discussion, just don’t like it, please don’t call what other people say nit-picking. Give us the same respect that you would ask for yourself.
Ironwolf:
I have responded to this post here. I might respond to some other aspects of this post later, but for now, I think what I have said is enough to carry the discussion further.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Althusius:
How flattering to find that your post included a stab in my direction. I can see that anyone bringing an opinion to this discussion that is not in alignment with yours will most certainly be under attack. I suppose that this the ultimate standard by which you treat your fellow human beings.
The following is the URL for something you mentioned in your rather scathing response:
Philosophy
I would suggest you read through it thoroughly. In fact look for as much information as you can on the subject before assuming that everyone with a differing opinion from yours is close minded and unworthy of your respect. Of course this is really another topic of discussion. But, it certainly gets under my skin when people choose to dismiss any part of the discussion due to personal bias.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:35 am
This reply was also posted to Althusius’ blog, but I’m keeping it here too for posterity.
Althusius,
We can disagree on where the Golden Rule comes from: you say your God gave it to you, and I say it is an optimal game-theoretic solution for livable societies. You say that that’s because God made it that way, and I say that the exceptions that your God allows to it corrupt it and increase human misery. You can say it is specifically the Christian God that laid it down and I can point to many earlier pagan religions (and non-religious philosophies) that had it first.
The fact is, we both agree that it is a standard for good that works. It’s in your own Bible at least twice. Go read it again.
Of course I do not practice it perfectly, but I believe it is beneficial that most people practice it most of the time. I have seen it make my life better. I see evidence that most people agree.
It is the best basis for moral common ground between us, my friend.
Why then do you seem to feel the need to undermine its validity simply because I don’t believe in your God? Certainly it is not because it is a bad or false moral standard. Could it be that the Golden Rule is, in and of itself, humanistic? It simply allows the greatest number of people to live in harmony and plenty without recourse to anyone’s god. I can see how, from your rather dogmatic perspective, that could seem pretty threatening.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Archiving a reply to a commenter on Athusius’ blog.
brtkrbzhnv,
How do you come to the conclusion that I just “assume” the Golden Rule? Simply google for:
“golden rule” “game theory”
…and you will see a great deal of research and thought that does anything but “assume” the Golden Rule. Here are two excellent hits:
Game Theory and Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [2004]
Moral Norms in a Partly-Compliant Society [2006]
February 10th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
elementalmuse:
I can see that anyone bringing an opinion to this discussion that is not in alignment with yours will most certainly be under attack.
You posed a contention, and I felt I needed to respond to it. There’s nothing about attacking in it. If you want to call my comment an “attack” (I said “please” and appealed to you in a good manner) than I could easily call your original comment about nit-picking an attack.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. Since you said that asking for a moral foundation is nit-picking, I assumed you would prefer that Slingpaw and I stop talking about it. I thought that since this is an important issue in philosophy, and you don’t like it, than you don’t like talking about philosophy, or at least this part of it. Therefore I responded, pointing out the importance of this subject.
I suppose that this the ultimate standard by which you treat your fellow human beings.
That sounds like a pretty agressive comment. That would definitely be classified as an “attack.”
assuming that everyone with a differing opinion from yours is close minded and unworthy of your respect.
I assume nothing of the sort. I’m respecting your opinions by answering them. However, “respect” doesn’t mean “agree”.
But, it certainly gets under my skin when people choose to dismiss any part of the discussion due to personal bias.
I didn’t dismiss anything, I disagreed with it.
Ironwolf:
I have responded to you in the comment section of my post.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Archiving a reply to Athusius’ last comment on his blog.
Althusius,
You originally asked me for my moral foundation, and I answered. I also showed that your moral foundation is a corrupt parody of mine. You asked me where my foundation came from, and if I have not answered that explicitly I apologize and do so here now: it is an emergent property of a social system. If you ask me how that social system came to be, I will tell you Evolution. If you ask me how evolution came to be I will say I’m not sure, but I hope we can find out someday. If you ask me how the universe came to be I’ll say I don’t know, but I hope we can find out someday.
Notice how “I don’t know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer to me? This is standard practice in science, as is the expression of a will to find out. Since your “holy book” fails any reasonable test of divine inspiration, it also fails to provide any useful answers to questions to which I have no immediate answers. Your brute assertions of Bible-based faith carry equally vacuous significance.
Your argument that God is “before time” (an oxymoron) and therefore this explains why people had the Golden Rule before the Judeo-Christian epoch is certainly no argument that a God (if one exists) is the God of Christianity. On that argument, you may as well grant equal validity to the prior religions.
You assert that the Golden Rule works but is incomplete without punishment. You have my pity that the only way you can conceive of acting in harmony with your fellow man is that you live in fear that you will be tortured for eternity if you do not. If you really need carrots and sticks, as I have previously stated, we live in a society of checks and balances, including rewards and punishments in the here-and-now. For me, my punishment is to see my fellow humans suffer and my reward is to see their suffering decrease.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Althusius says;
“By the Bible, the ultimate standard laid down by the Ruler of the universe.”
Donald Trump?
February 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Donald Trump is not the ruler of the universe.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
btw, Ironwolf, I responded to your comment in that thread here.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Oh, zing! Althusius. *Golf clap.*
February 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Archiving a reply to Athusius’ last comment on his blog. There are also a few minor edits I made enclosed in brackets [].
Althusius,
My claim that your moral foundation is a corrupt parody of mine is easily supported, and I have already done so. But I here again summarize: 1) It is “corrupt” because although your God and his followers preach the Golden Rule, they also suspend it helter-skelter to practice bigotry of the sort I raised in my original response– for example, the sexism and justifications of slavery you previously demonstrated. It is a “parody” in the sense that my dictionary describes: “An imitation or version of something that falls far short of the real thing,” because it takes the essential parsimonious wisdom of seeing ourselves in others (the true basis of love) and adds to it the travesty of eternal torments and rewards meted out by an unpredictable, petulant deity.
You seem to feel that emergent properties are “thought up” by someone, whereas just the opposite is true. For example, the gaussian or “bell” curve is an emergent property of many probabilistic systems– it’s not just a “good idea.” The fact is, in many systems we also observe emergent complexity– which, of course, you rule out as a possible explanation for life while simultaneously asserting the inexplicable prior existence of an infinitely complex Being.
You thank me for my honesty in admitting things I don’t know. But in my experience, this is nothing unusual or special among scientists and those with a healthy respect for the scientific method and critical thought. If it weren’t for the willingness to say, “I don’t know, but I’ll try to find out,” then science would not exist. It is however quite rare to hear a religionist admit they don’t know something because they consistently fall back on the stock answer “God did it.” The fact is, science has given us many more answers than religion; and although our new knowledge continues to raise new questions, religion has failed to provide us with any of the testable, useful answers we have sought.
You say that scientists do not look for theories other than evolution, but I will remind you that they did just that until Darwin finally provided a decent theory. After the advent of such a powerful theory, it takes an even more powerful theory to supplant it. If you have such a theory that explains all the DNA, geological, and fossil records better than— and makes new, more accurate predictions about biology that cannot be made by— the theory of descent with modification and natural selection (”evolution”) then please come forward and show that it is such. I assure you, you will be receiving your Nobel Prize shortly. Unfortunately, both you and I realize that you are stuck defending [a prior, untestable hypothesis], to wit: “A deity did it by fiat in six literal days.”
Of course you are unaware of the Bible failing any tests of divine inspiration. That is because, a priori, you accept a particular dogmatic interpretation of it as “true.” [Those (such as myself) who do not hold such prior dogmas look for clues] as to whether or not the extravagant supernatural claims made about it could possibly be true, and come up empty.
A “brute fact” is a “terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2005). By analogy, a “brute assertion” is a statement that purports to be a fact, but is not supported by evidence. “God is our Maker, therefore He rightly commands us, His creatures to follow His laws,” etc. are brute assertions based on your a priori acceptance of a particular interpretation of the Bible– they are unsupported by any information outside the untestable myths contained in your book. On the other hand, scientists begin with brute facts by taking measurements, and then construct hypotheses that suggest experiments. If the results of those experiments support the hypotheses, then a “theory” is born, and further measurements gathered and experiments devised and performed to see whether the theory holds up in light of the new evidence. You may find useful the visual explanation of this process here. Similarly, your claim that the concept of “before time” is an oxymoron, “Only for mortals, not for One who created time,” is also a brute assertion. [Not to mention repeating the oxymoron, as attempting to use the past tense of "create" outside the epistemological context required by it, namely "time," is a Stolen Concept.]
I refer to “prior religions” in the sense that Christianity as you hold to did not always exist, and other religions distinctly different from it preceded it. You may claim that there was always only one true form of worship of the one true deity, but again you are indolently resting on your brute assertions. I prefer real arguments and evidence.
Thank you for admitting that my credo, “My punishment is to see my fellow humans suffer and my reward is to see their suffering decrease,” is noble. You assert that most people do not follow it, but my experience is otherwise. The vast, vast majority of people do not deliberately hurt others, and do feel diminished when they experience the suffering of others. The global outpouring of concern over the Indian Ocean tsunami is a prime example. Oh, yes– didn’t your deity cause that evil?
Your final statements are quite disturbing. In them, you twist a quite justifiable statement, “As I would not want to be thrown in jail (or executed) for my beliefs and my occupation, so we should not throw this person in jail (or execute him) for following his beliefs and his occupation,” by absurdly re-defining “[his] beliefs” to mean “the belief that others should be harmed” and “[his] occupation” to mean “the occupation of killing all others.” Of course, in any society someone who held such definitions should and would be stopped, as self-defense is totally appropriate and justifiable under the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is not dogma, or relativism, and neither is it pacifism. Sadly, in your thrashing attempts to defend the erratic and corrupt morals of your deity, you are demonstrating a most perverse misunderstanding of the Golden Rule’s applications, implications and nuances.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Althusius:
“You posed a contention, and I felt I needed to respond to it. There’s nothing about attacking in it. If you want to call my comment an “attack” (I said “please” and appealed to you in a good manner) than I could easily call your original comment about nit-picking an attack.”
In keeping with “The Golden Rule”, I will honor your response with a solemn apology. I certainly didn’t intend for my use of the term “nit-picking” to be perceived as any sort of assault tactic. Perhaps I should be a bit more selective with my terminology when discussing philosophical matters.
“I am sorry if I misunderstood you. Since you said that asking for a moral foundation is nit-picking, I assumed you would prefer that Slingpaw and I stop talking about it. I thought that since this is an important issue in philosophy, and you don’t like it, than you don’t like talking about philosophy, or at least this part of it. Therefore I responded, pointing out the importance of this subject.”
I don’t believe I was trying to imply that asking for a moral foundation was nit-picking. Again perhaps my use of the English language lacks something when it comes to conveying my thoughts. My implication was aimed at the use of the word, “why” in the attempt made at dismantling a concept (The Golden Rule) that is widely accepted, even by Christian fundamentalists.
I might add, I would very much like for Ironwolf, Slingpaw, Chocomel, myself, and you to continue with any and all discussions that you care to. I am curious which part of my response indicated to you that I was disinterested in the topic of discussion or the ideal of philosophical discussion in general. Moral issues are of the utmost importance in my opinion.
I might like to add that my pointing out of your obvious lack of respect for others that stand in opposition to your point of view is far from an attack. In fact, in my realm of thought, if I am behaving in a manner that is without respect, I much prefer being enlightened to such behaviour that I might have an opportunity to correct the problem. I’d like to mention that respect means a great many things, and simply responding to another in a scathing and dismissive tone, does not co-notate respect in my book. It is not your disagreement with my view point that I was referring to. Perhaps the discussion can continue without anyone taking offense to the other regardless of whether the views being expressed coincide or not.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:21 am
In the Nov 1993 issue of Parade magazine there was an article by Carl Sagan analyzing the Golden Rule and several other rules. Here is what Sagan concludes:
“A RULE THAT WORKS. The most effective strategy in many such tournaments is called “Tit-for-Tat.” It’s very simple: You start out cooperating and, in each subsequent round, simply do what your opponent did last time. You punish defections, but once the other player cooperates, you’re willing to let bygones be bygones. At first it seems to garner only mediocre success. But as time goes on, the other strategies defeat themselves - from too much kindness or too much cruelty - and this middle way pulls ahead.
Except for always being nice on the first move, Tit-for-tat is identical to the Brazen Rule. It promptly (in the very next game) rewards cooperation and punishes defection, and it has the great virtue that it makes its strategy absolutely clear. ”
Ironwolf said, “There are no known cases where society broke down or wars were started because people were too respectful of others. So even from a purely selfish position, it pays to treat others well. ” Well, I think Sagan would disagree.
So with such clear evidence that “tit-for-tat” is a superior rule, why is it that almost everyone still points to the Golden Rule? I think the answer is that the Golden Rule brings in the emotions of empathy/sympathy and when we act out of those emotions, we feel good about ourselves, i.e. we build our self-esteem. So the foundation of the secular application of the Golden Rule is feel-goodism.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Matt,
I don’t think you’ve read my followup comments very closely. Althusius also claimed that the Golden Rule is some kind of foolish pacifism, which I deny. Let me ask: In the “Tit-for-tat” scenario that Sagan describes, why does he say, “You start out cooperating…?” The answer is simple: Because you wish others to do the same. As the Wikipedia article on Tit-for-tat explains: “Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate.” That is the essence of the Golden Rule— it has nothing to do with “feel goodism.” The Tit-for-tat strategy has much more to do with the checks and balances which society needs, and to which I have also made repeated reference. But note that Tit-for-tat also has problems in situations where rules of imperfect information apply (which amounts to most practical social situations.)
The Golden Rule is entirely secular, and entirely compatible with Tit-for-tat.
Oh, and I will also point out that while I deeply respect Carl Sagan, the two articles I mention in a previous comment, Game Theory and Ethics and
Moral Norms in a Partly-Compliant Society were published in 2004 and 2006 respectively— much more recently than Sagan’s 1993 article.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
As the game theory improves, from 1993 to 2006 for example as you say, we are able to devise improvements on the rules. Also as you pointed out, there are times when the various rules have problems so each situation must be evaluated to apply the best rule. Nothing magic about the Golden Rule other than it, in many cases, yields results that improve my self interest.
So seeing that we judge how well the various rules work in game theory to improve self interest, then the more fundamental rule is: do whatever is best to improve my self interest.
It would be quite refreshing if people were to declare that their objective in any conflict is to improve their own self-interest, but the fact is that declaring their true objectives is not in their best interest. The strategy is for me to tell others that I’m doing what I do is for their benefit when it is actually for my benefit and if they benefit also, well, lucky for them.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Matt,
I never claimed the Golden Rule was “magic—” only that it is an emergent property of societies that, from a higher-cognitive point of view, also constitutes a practical and defensible moral stance.
Of course we each act in our own interest. But maturity also brings us the knowledge that 1) acting in our own interest frequently entails simultaneously acting in the interests of others, and 2) that “giving” is not always “losing” and “getting” is not always “winning.” In fact, typical social interactions, whether they involve relationships, money, or even power are most often non-zero-sum.
Principled Negotiation is the process by which parties can protect their interests while still helping others achieve theirs, and it has nothing to do with luck.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Interesting exchange going on here.
I think the crux of the matter here is that the vast majority view self-promotional efforts in a far too negative light. Of course we are all seeking ways to improve our individual self-interests, however, I want to know in what way this is actually wrong. For example, the church vies for it’s self-interest by promoting the concept of tithing, most of us get up and go to work in the morning to improve our financial and sometimes social self-interests. I, as do many others like me, study constantly in an effort to improve my personal self-interests.
I believe that the Golden Rule, Tit-for-Tat, reciprocity, and the Game Theory are all really sort of extensions of the same sort of precept. The Golden Rule is my preferred method of handling most things in life, and seems to work well in most situations. Tit-for-Tat is something I am sure most everyone has been a part of at some time or another for various reasons, with varying degrees of success. I guess the important thing to remember in any ethically challenging scenario is the level on which you are operating.
If my child throws a tantrum in order to get his way, I do not reciprocate in kind. This achieves a mutual benefit. He learns how to become a less reactive individual by example, and I get the benefit of his tantrums growing less frequent due to my lack of over reactive response. Win, win, wouldn’t you agree. Not to mention this benefit is a life long improvement to my child’s self-interests and those that will be a part of his life in the future, including his children.
When dealing with anyone else, no matter what, if each is willing to commit themselves to their particular level of interaction in the situation both can almost always benefit from one another, if in no other way than to gain knowledge and experience.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:23 am
In dealing with each other, we need to be able to trust the other person. Acting in my own very enlightened self interest sometimes is going to involve dishonesty, deceit and betrayal. Yes, it’s smart not to do those things very often or for trivial gain but just ’self interest’ can never disregard any weapon. Self interest doesn’t follow the Golden rule, it uses the Golden rule when needed and uses any other rule when needed. There is no inherent honesty in ’self-interest’.
Saying that we follow the Golden rule tends to disarm others into a false trust.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Matt,
Your use of the word “inherent” seems to imply the existence of some “absolute moral standard—” a title I have never claimed for the Golden Rule. “Honesty” is also an emergent property of social systems.
I take it by “false trust” you mean naïve trust. When trust is important, we should Trust, but Verify.
I’m curious, Matt. You’ve attacked the Golden Rule a couple of times here, so why not share with us the basis for your morality?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Ironwolf,
I think “Trust, but Verify” was a little Reagan joke. It was his way of saying he didn’t trust them at all. Is there really any difference between saying “I’m going to watch them like a hawk because I don’t trust them” and “trust, but verify”?
We all want to trust our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues because monitoring, spying, verifing is time consuming and leads to cynicism. Many times it is close to impossible to verify until it’s too late.
Under the Golden Rule, we are to ask how we would like to be treated and the answer in my opinion is “with openness and honesty”. But openness and honesty are not compatible with self interest. That’s why I think self interest cannot lead to an honest application of the Golden Rule.
With self interest as the motivator, there is not even a need for the Golden Rule, the rule should just be “do whatever is in your best self-interest”. To quote the Golden Rule becomes merely a subterfuge to gain trust because gaining trust is in ones own self interest.
Matt
March 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Matt,
Yes, Reagan used “Trust, but verify,” but if you read the Wikipedia article I linked to, you’ll see the phrase is considerably older.
If you want me to agree that acting in one’s self-interest is fundamental, then fine: I agree with that. But self-interest per se has nothing to do with morals, and morality is where this discussion began. Why does it have nothing to do with morals? Because everyone acts in their self-interest, and something everyone does automatically involves no choices, whereas morality does involve choices. We all eat, we all breathe, and we all act in our own self-interest. But not everyone follows the Golden Rule.
In addition to the things I have already said it is not, the Golden Rule is not altruism, i.e., “selflessness.” Frankly I don’t believe there is such a thing as a true “selfless act,” as humans always act from some motivation that is important to them. Thus, it is not selfless even if they choose to sacrifice their lives; because even in that extreme case they believe they are serving some “higher purpose” that gratifies them. And even the suicidal believe that death is a better choice for them than to go on living.
So the question is not, “Shall we act in our self-interest?” but, “In what way shall we act in our self-interest?” That is what the Golden Rule is intended to answer. Always acting in one’s self-interest without actively taking the self-interest of the other party into consideration is quite unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome because it treats every interaction as zero-sum. But if you do take the other party’s self-interest into consideration then, hey! You’re following the Golden Rule, and it works to do so because life, in general, is not a zero-sum game.
March 10th, 2007 at 4:53 am
I think I agree with what you have written.
Does your view of selfless acts also extend to the subject of love, e.g. is your love for ones brother or sister or spouse or children something that is founded on ones own self-interest? In the case of a child, I would suppose that the self interest is the good feelings that goes with being a parent.
Matt
March 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Matt,
Yes, I believe that familial relationships— although often complex— work when all parties feel like they are benefitting. When reciprocity breaks down, we see syndromes such child or spousal abuse, runaways, and divorce.
Even infants and small children “give” to their parents, older siblings, and other elders— not as conscious acts but in other, involuntary or instinctual ways such as physically resembling their parents, reminding elders of their own childhood, positive feedback to elders as they become aware of and responsive to their surroundings, showing an interest in and admiration for the elders and their activities, and achieving successive milestones of learning.
From an evolutionary perspective I would say that, in general, people are hardwired to become parents and love their kids, and kids are hardwired to learn (and particularly to believe what their parents tell them.)
As a father, I can personally attest that my kids are a great joy to me— and also that I have an acute awareness of my responsibility to them. The joy and the responsibility are two sides of the same coin. As my kids manifest the kinds of child-like “giving” I mention above, my responsibility is to protect them and nurture their interests— and in return I receive the next levels of benefits. Both the giving I do and the giving they do changes in nature over time, but at each stage of the relationship (ideally) we are also both receiving.
As I said, there are many layers of complexity at work. But the Golden Rule is an orienting principle in both my personal and business relationships, and one of the most important things I strive to teach my kids.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Yes, I agree.
You had mentioned that self sacrifice is “not selfless even if they choose to sacrifice their lives; because even in that extreme case they believe they are serving some “higher purpose” that gratifies them.” If one has no belief in a “higher purpose” other than self-interest, what would cause them to sacrifice themselves for their children? You cannot enjoy your children or go to the next level of benefits if you are dead.
Evolution communicates its demands through feelings or hardwired as you say. Yet with our ability to think things out, shouldn’t we submit our feelings to the test of reason? Feelings are the result of some chemicals in the brain; why should one sacrifice ones life for that?
March 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Matt,
I think you’re assuming that “higher purpose” and “self-interest” are mutually exclusive. One can be devoted to a higher purpose, and also act in one’s self-interest, even to the point of sacrificing one’s life. The determination only need be made that, faced with some extreme situation, if one did not sacrifice one’s life then the remainder of it would not be worth living, but that if one did sacrifice one’s life, then the world would at least continue more in accord with one’s ideals. This is why, for instance, we do in fact have atheists in foxholes.
But the values for which— and the circumstances under which— any given individual might make such a sacrifice are far from universal.
It should be noted that this logic is not the same as that used by religious suicide bombers. Their metaphysics tells them that martyrdom is not really a sacrifice at all, but that their afterlife will be a glory.
Your denigration of feelings as “the result of some chemicals in the brain” can be equally applied to rational thought. Humans have evolved a “survive-and-propser” toolkit that can be thought of as including multiple kinds of intelligence, each of which is valuable when developed and used under the right circumstances. Some of that ability deals with emotions, which I like to think of as a form of rationality under lossy compression— available quickly and useful for many purposes, but also grainy and not able to cope with the subtleties that our complex society frequently demands.
I don’t think I would sacrifice my life for an isolated emotion, and it sounds like you wouldn’t either. I would also discourage such behavior in others. If such a sacrifice is to be made, I think it would be best to do so with the counsel of a full set of well-developed faculties.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Hi,
By higher purpose, I had meant a transcendental purpose. Of course, we can always invent a purpose and tell ourselves it is somehow higher. Many people choose, “I want to leave the world a better place” as their higher purpose. I think they pick that because they can sort of envision people praising them and that praise gives them a good feeling. I can see that if a father did fail to sacrifice himself for his child that there would be great feelings of failure, regret, remorse, etc. plus all the emotional pain from the public accusations that would come. The father would not experience just an isolation emotion, but rather a pattern of emotions.
I do think that most people would allow that a “higher purpose” can lead to some reward as an incidental consequence, but I also think they would deny that “self interest” can be a basis for “higher purpose”. I think that is because they cannot envision themselves being praised by others for doing what is best for themselves. Few people expect to be praised for mere cooperation when that cooperation is in their own best self interest. I think that most people consider the sacrifice of self interest to be essential to “higher purpose”.
The “survive and prosper” toolkit refers, I presume, to the survival and prosperity of the species and would not lead necessarily to our own personal survival or prosperity. No tool in any of my car toolkits dictates my ultimate purpose in using the tool. In contast, an evolution supplied toolkit is diverting my purpose, my very thought process, from self interest to “species interest”. You seem to be content that mindless evolution can dictate our actions. I see that as putting a happy face on a form of slavery.
Matt
March 12th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Matt,
I’m not sure what prompted you to make your last (rather snarky) remark— I don’t recall saying anything that exalts “species interest” over individual self-interest, although I think they are often coincident. Darwinian evolution dictates the things that members of our species have in common, but has hardly anything at all to say about the things that make us unique individuals within our societies.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:03 am
I am sorry that I allowed my tone to be disrespectful.
Since the vast majority of all species have evolved into extinction, I find myself unable to be a fan of evolution. I would think that every extinct species had its own evolved “survive and prosper” toolkit.
Matt
March 13th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Matt,
I am not a fan of evolution either: I am a fan of reality.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Hi,
At the risk of seeming snarky again, although you may be the exception, I am not impressed by such declarations from anyone. Dawkins has shown us that self-interest is our genetic heritage as is deception that keeps others from knowning our true intent. Other researchers such as David Smith, director of the New England Institute at the University of New England and author of “Why We Lie”. have written about self deception. He says we lie best when we don’t know we’re lying. “We don’t have the nervousness or broadcast the tell-tale signs of unease that the intentional liar can barely help,” he explains. “Self-deception is the handmaiden of deceit–in hiding the truth from ourselves, we’re able to hide it more fully from others.” I think that is especially true when it comes to our inner motives.
Matt
March 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Matt,
Deception, like other emergent properties of complex systems, is inherent not only in the human condition, but in life in general. So what? That fact in no way negates the Golden Rule. I think the whole motivation behind the scientific enterprise (and critical thought in general) is that people decide they prefer to be “fans of reality,” which means as much as possible avoiding “pet theories” as well as the other self-deceptions to which we are all prone. So while actions do indeed speak louder than words, all we have in the blogosphere are words, so we can only come here and judge each others’ ideas. If you don’t want to call yourself a fan of reality, then fine, don’t. But I feel that I am in good company calling myself that, and the reason I did so was to respond to your apparent implication that I am a “fan of evolution.” I would be happy to trade evolution for a better theory, should one come along. But so far that has not happened.
I’m still curious, Matt— you’ve spent a lot of time here attacking my ideas, with which you do not seem to fundamentally agree. So why not make some positive statements about your own belief system?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Archiving a reply to Athusius’ last comment on his blog.
Althusius,
First, you continue to justify the sexism and slavery condoned by the Bible and your God. My point.
Next, you spend several paragraphs begging the question of the Bible’s divine authority by appealing to… the Bible’s divine authority! (”The answer, “God did it” is not wrong at all, since He tells in His Word that He did it.”) My point again.
Next, you briefly dis on other cultures because some of them haven’t made as great a contribution to science as some other cultures that were predominantly Christian. Even if I grant you that, this would not be an argument that Christianity is true, only that it may promote science. But I can’t really grant you that, as often the Christian establishment has been a chief enemy of science— finally giving in only when to not do so would make laughingstocks of them. If you look at where cutting-edge advances in both science and social systems are being made today, you will have to look outside the U.S. (a “Christian nation” by description though not prescription) to some of the least religious countries. Another point here.
Next you try to claim religion as the origin of science while simultaneously attempting to undermine science. Cheeky move, but it falls flat. 4-Love.
Next, you admit to an extreme dogmatism of absolute truth. Have you noticed that Richard Dawkins entitles the central chapter of his bestselling book The God Delusion, “Why there is almost certainly no God”? Hey, if the world’s leading atheist is willing to concede a little doubt about whether there is a God, won’t you even concede a little doubt about your claim that God exists? No? I didn’t think so, but then you seem content in the unwholesome company of a lot of other dogmatists— both religious (such as terrorists) and political (such as dictators)— who also have no use for doubt. Point.
Next, you accuse me of a brute assertion when I say that Christianity did not always exist. Well, if you’d like to produce some evidence that people called themselves Christian back in the days of Moses, then I’ll retract that. I’ll charitably call this one a foul.
Next, you attempt an incredibly weak defense of your straw man characterization of the Golden Rule. How you continue to derive killing and mayhem out of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” continues to be a real stumper for me. Point.
Next, you attack self-defense as not compatible with the Golden Rule, again showing your persistent misunderstanding of its application within the larger framework of game theory. People defend themselves from each other when necessary, but they prefer to trust each other. This is reciprocal and it works (remember, a more general name for the Golden Rule is “The Ethic of Reciprocity.”) That you carry on attacking an ethic that you yourself pragmatically hold is quite astonishing. (You would defend your family, wouldn’t you? Or perhaps you’ll just sit around faithfully waiting for lightning bolts from heaven to zap your wife’s rapist.) Point.
Nearing the end, you call me out for describing you as, among other things, corrupt and perverse. You again attempt to construct a straw man Golden Rule out of pacifism. “You wouldn’t want to be called evil, so by the GoLDen rULe you should not call anyone else evil.” But if someone thinks I’m evil, then I’m quite willing to have them call me that, for perhaps I will recognize truth in their words and change my ways. If I do not, then no harm done is done to me by their words, and in any case I can respond with my own view. 8-Nothing.
You are (of course) welcome to score this debate your own way. And I invite you to have the last word. I’m convinced that thinking readers (Christian or not) will easily see the staggering fallacies inherent in your world view. But since I believe we’re starting to run in circles, I’m going to call my end of this debate closed. I am, of course, available to answer any specific questions you may have. You know where to find me.
Regards,
Ironwolf
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 am
Ironwolf, your response nail him
December 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I have read many perversions today.
I am a woman, person of colour, & an atheist.
so here comes another perspective.
from the Althusius blog referenced here earlier:
“”And as I said before,