Pages

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Our Man in Havana


I’m going to comment on this post:


What really got me wondering about this was last Sunday’s (May 13) episode of “60 Minutes.” They interviewed a former top US spy who had a lot of interesting things to say about strategies for information gathering. One that caught my ear was providing pornography to foreign diplomats and agents. He said he never met a diplomat of a certain country that didn’t love pornography and that he and other US agents provided pornography to them in exchange for information.

I had never thought about that before. I knew that as a US secret agent you might have to kill people, but provide them with pornography? Now that’s another question. Can a Christian do that with a clear conscience—for whatever payoff? Does any end justify such an immoral means?

Needless to say, if Olsen, at the very outset, defines the means as “immoral,” then, by definition, no goal, however, worthy, can justify the use of immoral means.

But that simply illustrates Olson’s chronic inability to accurately represent a position he opposes. He’s interjecting his own value-judgment into the way he frames the opposing position.

Assuming (ex hypothesi) that we did think that pornography was a justifiable enticement in espionage, it wouldn’t be with the understanding that the means is immoral.

So why am I even posting about this? I wonder if, in our American evangelical Christian churches, we have given enough thought to what Christians should and should not do or participate in, in terms of sinful behavior, for the greater good of our country?

Once again, if you initially define the means as “sinful,” then the question answers itself. But that begs the question.

As I watched that I wondered how many Christians watching the show shuddered at that method of obtaining secret information about our enemy countries. I suspected that many who wouldn’t hesitate to defend torture or even assassination did shudder at that and wondered to themselves whether they could do that with a clear Christian conscience.
 
Again, I suspect many conservative evangelical (and other) Christians would balk at supplying graphic pornography to enemy agents but not balk at participating in torture or assassination or capital punishment (assuming they are constitutionally able to stomach such things).

i) This is unintentionally comical. Why would some Christians think torture or assassination is sometimes warranted, but using pornography is never warranted? Why is that where we’d draw the line? If anything, wouldn’t it be the other way around? Surely “torture” and assassination are more serious than pornography. (Keep in mind that we’re speaking of pornography in espionage.)

ii) In addition, Olson is such a babe in the woods. The guy’s 60 years old. He lived through much of the Cold War.

Not only does espionage sometimes employ pornography, but prostitution–as a form of blackmail. Has Olson never heard of “honeypots”? He acts like he just fell off the turnip truck.

Thus far I haven’t bothered to comment on the morality (or not) of using pornography in espionage. For now I’m just remarking on Olson’s naïveté, as well as his inverted priority system. I haven’t commented on pornography in espionage because I think that’s fairly trivial compared to some other issues in espionage and counterterrorism.

Olson has led such a cloistered existence. He spent his entire life in insular church circles. His lack of real-world experience no doubt accounts for some of his ethical positions.

Where exactly are the limits? I know that there are evangelical Christians working in intelligence gathering for the US government. What will they absolutely refuse to do—no matter what the pay off might be in terms of obtaining important information that might make us more secure as a nation?
Let’s consider torture. I have heard reasonable people defend torture as a last resort. (You can call waterboarding whatever you want to; to me it’s torture.) Okay, let’s agree to disagree about that. (I think torture is always wrong and should never be condoned by policy.) What about torturing a suspected terrorist’s wife and children—if torturing him doesn’t work?

Absurd, you say? Well, it has happened in history. I have read accounts of it being done by Nazis, so it isn’t literally absurd.

No, you say? Never? Why not? What justifies drawing an absolute line between torturing a suspected terrorist to extract information and torturing his wife and children if it is likely to work? (Remember, he’s only a suspected terrorist, so saying torturing him is justified whereas torturing his wife and children is not because he’s guilty and they’re innocent won’t work.)

i) When Olson classifies a terrorist as a merely “suspected” terrorist, what does that stand in contrast to? A convicted terrorist? Is this just a legal formality?

What about an admitted terrorist? And by that I mean a terrorist who was an admitted terrorist even before he was “tortured” or apprehended. Surely there are “suspected” terrorists whose involvement in terrorism isn’t in serious doubt. For instance, Bin Laden was never convicted of terrorism. Does that mean he’s merely a “suspected” terrorist?

ii) So, yes, there’s a fairly obvious distinction between a “suspected” terrorist and his kids. Of course, that also depends on what Olson means by “children.”

Is Olson using “child” in a chronological sense, for an underage minor? Keep in mind that grown children can follow the old man into the family business. A twenty-something or thirty-something child of a terrorist can be a terrorist in his own right. Let’s not get sentimental.

iii) There’s a fairly obvious moral difference between “torturing” a terrorist for information about terrorist plots, networks, &c., and “torturing” an innocent bystander.

iv) As to drawing an “absolute” line, ethics is chockfull of borderline cases. There are situations in life where we can’t draw an “absolute” line. Can Olson draw an absolute line between murder and self-defense? There are many situations in which that line can clearly be drawn, but there are other situations in which that’s ambiguous. 

In real life we’re going to be confronted by situations where there’s at least apparent moral ambiguity regardless of what we do or refrain from doing. Where we don’t have instant answers. Where we don’t have as much information as we need to be morally confident. It's unrealistic to demand the "exact limits" of what's permissible or impermissible. Olson himself has nothing to offer in that regard. 

Demanding an “absolute line” in every situation doesn’t keep you morally pristine. You’re going to find yourself in circumstances where making a tough decision one way or the other is unavoidable even if you can’t point to an “absolute line” distinguishing one course of action from another.

I think some Anabaptists (and perhaps others) prefer not to work for any government agency or branch because it is impossible to discern the line between what is participation in unchristian, immoral acts and what is not. And there is always the danger of being asked to participate, however indirectly, in violence or immorality such as providing pornography to someone.

But that’s just a cop-out. By delegating the task to someone else, then turning a blind eye to what the second-party does, you still share responsibility for the outcome.

Sequestering yourself in an Amish community simply relocates the issue. You’re still drawing lines. After all, there’s no “absolute” line between the morality of working in gov’t and working outside of gov’t.

I don’t agree with Hauerwas or Yoder about everything, but I think they do (did) the church a great service by at least raising questions about Christian virtues and government practices.

Is that a great service to the church? Unless they have a workable alternative, they bring Christian ethics into disrepute. They make Christian ethicists look like ninnies who fight terrorism with a plate of home-baked cookies.

In Hannah’s Child (his autobiography) Hauerwas writes about the backlash he felt from theological friends when he criticized America’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. One well known theologian with whom he was close walked out on a talk he was giving and later wrote to ask him if he felt no “natural loyalties”—meaning to country, I take it.

Well, that’s very vague. Was there a backlash merely because he opposed the wars, or was it specific to the reasons he gave?

Of course, if he’s a pacifist, then he’d criticize any military response regardless of the threat or provocation.

And so what if there was a “backlash” (whatever that means)? Criticism is a two-way street.

I guess I would ask that theologian if he would provide pornography to an enemy agent if it would result in the likelihood of obtaining information that would help make our country more secure. If his answer was “yes,” I would ask if he would provide LSD or other mind-altering drugs.

I don’t see how administering a hallucinogen is a reliable way of obtaining information. Perhaps Olson has truth serum in mind. That’s a convention of spy novels.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that truth serum was a reliable way of obtaining information from a terrorist, yes, I think that’s justifiable.

If the answer was “yes,” I would ask what he WOULDN’T do to obtain such information. If there was ANYTHING he wouldn’t do, I could ask him if he felt no natural loyalties.

Olson is trying to up the ante. He acts as if administering truth serum is already morally outrageous. Hence, if you’re prepared to do that, what are you not prepared to do?

But he hasn’t begun to explain why administering truth serum to a terrorist is the next fateful step in moral freefall. Why does he think that’s immoral? Where’s his argument? Otherwise, there is no downward spiral.

Certainly there are lines that Christians shouldn’t cross. The ends, however noble, can never justify immoral means. But that leaves open the question of what means are intrinsically immoral. Olson hasn’t provided a general formula or rule-of-thumb for distinguishing moral means from immoral means.

All he’s done is to give us some examples of what he deems to be immoral, without furnishing any supporting arguments. He can’t extrapolate from his examples before he defends his examples.

Hauerwas believes it is always wrong for Christians to kill fellow Christians. Whether he is a strict pacifist is somewhat difficult to discern. I thought so, but then I read an article by him that muddied the waters a bit. He seemed to back off absolute pacifism into a kind of “war is always evil even when it’s a necessary evil” position. But one thing is clear—he wants Christians to be in the forefront of abolishing war (and capital punishment, etc.).

Abolishing war? How does that work, exactly? Does Congress pass a law abolishing war? Does the UN pass a resolution abolishing war? Then what happens? Does everyone compliantly disarm? How do you enforce a resolution against war?

This is why pacifism is morally frivolous.

Should natural loyalties over ride Christian brotherhood? C. S. Lewis thought so. What did Christians of the first three centuries think? For the most part they did not participate in war or serve in the military.

That’s a false dichotomy. Christian brotherhood has national as well as international dimensions. What about protecting Christian brothers on the home front?

Can anyone imagine the Apostle Paul, just to choose one first century Christian, providing pornography to anyone for any reason?

Why is Olson so obsessed with the moral propriety of pornography in espionage? Surely that’s small potatoes compared to other issues in military ethics. Aren't there more important things to evaluate?

Can anyone imagine the Apostle Paul, just to choose one first century Christian, providing pornography to anyone for any reason? Participating in torturing someone for any reason? Taking up arms to kill someone for any reason? I can’t.

Rather than putting words in St. Paul’s mouth, I’d just point out that Paul was a firm believer in the divine inspiration of the OT. Let’s take some concrete examples of OT ethics in action:

17 But Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. 18 And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. 19 And he said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. 20 And he said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’” 21 But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died. 22 And behold, as Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he went in to her tent, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg in his temple.
 
24 “Most blessed of women be Jael,
    the wife of Heber the Kenite,
    of tent-dwelling women most blessed.
25  He asked for water and she gave him milk;
    she brought him curds in a noble's bowl.
26  She sent her hand to the tent peg
    and her right hand to the workmen's mallet;
she struck Sisera;
    she crushed his head;
    she shattered and pierced his temple.
27 Between her feet
    he sank, he fell, he lay still;
between her feet
    he sank, he fell;
where he sank,
    there he fell—dead.
 
(Judges 4:17-22; 5:24-27
 
While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2  These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.”
6 And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7  When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand 8 and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped (Num 25:1-8).

I imagine that St. Paul approved of these actions.

At times it seems to me that we simply assume that we should do whatever our country asks us to do—especially if we are in the government’s service—without question.

Who’s assuming that?

Olson isn’t a serious moralist. He’s just a showman.

23 comments:

  1. "Why is Olson so obsessed with the moral propriety of pornography in espionage? Surely that’s small potatoes compared to other issues in military ethics. Aren't there more important things to evaluate?"

    In addition, I think another possible problem with Olson's concern over the use of pornography in espionage is that it's likely an obsolete concern. Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it's a relevant concern today. I mean perhaps exchanging pornography for information was a relevant issue during the Cold War. But pornography is ubiquitous on the internet, for example, and the internet is easily accessible to virtually any government agent or foreign diplomat even in the developing world. I doubt pornography would hold the same cachet in the modern world. Doesn't Olson want to address ethical issues relevant to the world we're living in? Olson doesn't seem so progressive for a progressive Christian.

    Or does he see some value in addressing an outdated issue? If so, what?

    On a totally different note, I've been enjoying the TV show Person of Interest. Although I wouldn't say it's must-see TV (far from it), it does bring up some interesting moral or ethical issues from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The way Olson writes about this topic, you'd think that if he inspected a high-school kid's locker and found a porn magazine and an assault rifle that he would be more worried about the possession of the magazine than the firearm. The firearm indicates a propensity to commit murder, but he chooses to complain about the porn magazine. Someone's perspective is a liiittle bit skewed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll agree with rocking here- how can giving someone porn be relevant today? Anyone can get just about anything their libido desires for free online- just grab your dick and double click, as they say.

    Steve, you say:

    As to drawing an “absolute” line, ethics is chockfull of borderline cases. There are situations in life where we can’t draw an “absolute” line. Can Olson draw an absolute line between murder and self-defense? There are many situations in which that line can clearly be drawn, but there are other situations in which that’s ambiguous.

    Okay, steve, I admit that you do surprise me sometimes. I'd not have expected this admission from you about how some decisions are not clearcut. I suppose you don't grant God this leeway, however.

    In any case, a pleasant surprise! Cheers from sunny and morally ambiguous Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  4. I haven't noticed anyone really opposed to killing for some reason or another.

    Atheists? Since when have they been opposed to killing?

    If a Christian commits some perversion, at least he is being inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

    But no deed...however vile, from child abuse on up...is necesarly inconsistent with being an atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Morrison- you say:

    But no deed...however vile, from child abuse on up...is necesarly inconsistent with being an atheists.

    This is true. The same is true of being a theist. At the worst, any vile deed is a forgivable sin. But as far as I know, no one claims that atheism provides anyone with morals, any more than science does. That's why most atheists subscribe to some set of morals that makes sense to them. And most atheists have (surprise!) many morals in common with most theists: they want peace and freedom just like everyone else. Where's the mystery here? Religions are just stories to justify what most of us want anyway: workable societies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. zilch

    "That's why most atheists subscribe to some set of morals that makes sense to them."

    They have morals without a foundation for morals. Stipulative morality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. sunny and morally ambiguous Vienna

    LOL, nice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I haven't noticed anyone really opposed to killing for some reason or another.

    Then, with all due respect, you need to get out more, Morrison.

    ReplyDelete
  9. steve- what for do I need a "foundation" for morals? I'll just take the morals- they work without foundations just as well as with imaginary foundations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. zilch said:

    "steve- what for do I need a 'foundation' for morals? I'll just take the morals- they work without foundations just as well as with imaginary foundations."

    For starters, if objective morality doesn't exist, if morality is built on "imaginary foundations," then if someone becomes aware of this fact, why should they live morally if it serves their interests to do otherwise? What reason would they have to play by the rules? If someone sees the rules don't actually exist, then so long as they know they won't get caught and punished or some such, then why not circumvent the morals for their own interests? For example, check out Brian Godawa's "Cruel Logic."

    ReplyDelete
  11. rocking- you ask: For starters, if objective morality doesn't exist, if morality is built on "imaginary foundations," then if someone becomes aware of this fact, why should they live morally if it serves their interests to do otherwise?

    Good question. Why do you suppose that so many atheists manage to live morally? Probably all kinds of different reasons, but basically people live morally because living morally produces society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zilch

      "Good question. Why do you suppose that so many atheists manage to live morally? Probably all kinds of different reasons, but basically people live morally because living morally produces society."

      Living immorally also produces society.

      Anyway, why would an atheist live morally to produce society? Why wouldn't self-interest take precedence?

      Delete
  12. steve

    Living immorally also produces society.

    But not as well as living morally, in terms of happiness and furthering life.

    Anyway, why would an atheist live morally to produce society? Why wouldn't self-interest take precedence?

    As I pointed out above, you should try to answer your own question: why doesn't self-interest take precedence among atheists, at least more often than it does? Perhaps for reasons similar to those you theists give, but just formulated differently. Everyone can see the advantages of living in societies that are peaceful, provide for the needs of their members, and further life in lots of generally agreed upon ways. Thus, it makes sense to convince people to behave in such ways that desirable society is produced. You call your set of ways godgiven morals- I call them just morals, or humanist morals, or perhaps enlightened, or broadened, self-interest. I love the world, and so it's part of me- if I harm it, I harm myself. Is that so strange?

    While our morals certainly differ in detail, especially in such things as gender roles and sexuality, most of what both of us hold to be good rules is probably pretty much the same, and the same of people of all religions as well. We just ascribe to different views of the authority behind our morals.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zilch said:

      "But not as well as living morally, in terms of happiness and furthering life."

      On your atheism, why should anyone's "happiness" but my own be of concern to me? Why should "furthering life" be of concern to me if it serves my self-interest not to further life?

      What if a serial killer finds "happiness" in raping and killing multiple women?

      "why doesn't self-interest take precedence among atheists, at least more often than it does?"

      You're completely missing the point. This isn't about behavior. Sure, atheists can behave morally and theists can behave immorally. But that's not the question. Rather the question is what's the basis or foundation for objective morality.

      "Everyone can see the advantages of living in societies that are peaceful"

      Not warrior societies.

      "provide for the needs of their members"

      Just like Nazi Germany with the Jewish members of their society.

      "and further life in lots of generally agreed upon ways."

      Like how our society values educators whereas Pol Pot's society killed them.

      "Thus, it makes sense to convince people to behave in such ways that desirable society is produced"

      Which depends in no small part on what society values. What society finds desirable to produce.

      It comes down to just people telling other people what they happen to think is moral. But once again there's no reason self-interest shouldn't take precedence over morality.

      "I love the world, and so it's part of me- if I harm it, I harm myself. Is that so strange?"

      Given your beliefs, it is strange. For example, it's 1941 and I'm a German living in Berlin. I know I risk being shot and killed for hiding my Jewish neighbor. However so far you haven't offered any good reason why I should hide my Jewish neighbor.

      "While our morals certainly differ in detail, especially in such things as gender roles and sexuality, most of what both of us hold to be good rules is probably pretty much the same, and the same of people of all religions as well."

      That's gotta be the understatement of the week. Stuff like seppuku, sati, and jihadi suicide bombing are "pretty much the same" as Western society's value for life. Baekjeong, burakumin, and dalit are "pretty much the same" as Western society's care for the poor and socially disadvantaged. And so on and so forth.

      "We just ascribe to different views of the authority behind our morals."

      Okay, I take it back. This has gotta be the understatement of the week!

      Delete
  13. On your atheism, why should anyone's "happiness" but my own be of concern to me? Why should "furthering life" be of concern to me if it serves my self-interest not to further life?

    [...] Given your beliefs, it is strange. For example, it's 1941 and I'm a German living in Berlin. I know I risk being shot and killed for hiding my Jewish neighbor. However so far you haven't offered any good reason why I should hide my Jewish neighbor.


    Perhaps we're all better off if you remain a Christian, then, rocking, if that's all that's stopping you from pushing down old ladies in the street. I've tried to explain why the happiness of others is of concern to me and most other people. If you don't get it, then there's not much more I can say.

    You're completely missing the point. This isn't about behavior. Sure, atheists can behave morally and theists can behave immorally. But that's not the question. Rather the question is what's the basis or foundation for objective morality.

    No, you're completely missing the point: this is about behavior, unless you can show that some basis or foundation for objective morality exists, or even that there is such a beast as "objective" morality, or that people behave less nicely if they don't believe in such a morality. You haven't done so thus far.

    I'm not God: I can only judge based on behavior. But that's fine with me. I don't really care what gets people to behave nicely, as long as they do; and if you admit that atheists also behave nicely, then I've made the only point which can be rationally discussed, barring evidence for God or His morals.

    Stuff like seppuku, sati, and jihadi suicide bombing are "pretty much the same" as Western society's value for life. Baekjeong, burakumin, and dalit are "pretty much the same" as Western society's care for the poor and socially disadvantaged.

    Not many people engage in seppuku and that other nasty stuff, just as not many Westerners engage in going amok in shopping malls. And Western society's vaunted care for the poor is undergoing rough weather in the States. Why is it, given the fact that the US is far more religious than Western Europe, that it also has far more homelessness and violence? Not a good poster child for Christianity.

    In any case, all you're doing is pointing out that societies fail to live up to moral standards- I'll heartily agree with you there. But it remains to be shown that having a "foundation" for "objective morality" does any better than not having one- and I don't see any evidence for this.

    cheers from Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zilch said:

      "Perhaps we're all better off if you remain a Christian, then, rocking, if that's all that's stopping you from pushing down old ladies in the street."

      Once again, you completely miss the point, zilch. First, I'm not arguing for Christianity. I'm primarily arguing against your atheism. Second, obviously you lack basic reading comprehension skills. When I bring up the sorts of counterexamples like the ones I brought up above, it doesn't mean I personally endorse them. Rather I'm using them as counterexamples to undercut your points (others can judge whether they're successful or not). Third, although I can discuss moral behavior, the primary issue has been the foundations for morality. Anyone can go back up and read this thread in context.

      "I've tried to explain why the happiness of others is of concern to me and most other people. If you don't get it, then there's not much more I can say."

      The problem is you haven't explained any such thing. It's easy enough for people to simply re-read what you've written above.

      Not to mention you don't interact rationally. You just muster more bluster.

      "that people behave less nicely if they don't believe in such a morality. You haven't done so thus far."

      You're quite thick. Why should "people behave less nicely" on your atheism? That's the question. Thus far your answers have largely centered around the good of societies, which begs the question. What is "good" for society? Different societies throughout history have had different ethics or morals.

      Also, as far as "nice" behavior goes, that could be person-dependent. There are conservative-leaning atheists who would oppose liberal-leaning atheists on various ethical issues, for example.

      "I'm not God: I can only judge based on behavior."

      Thanks, nice to see you undercutting some aspects to investigating the science including neuroscience of morality. Inasmuch as the science of morality is based in large part on non-behavioral investigations like various brain scans (e.g. fMRIs) and physiological research like hormonal and metabolic studies (e.g. oxytocin).

      Delete
    2. "I don't really care what gets people to behave nicely, as long as they do"

      This amounts to a string of null. On the one hand, Hitler and the Nazis got a lot of Germans to "behave nicely." Bushido got a lot of Japanese men to "behave nicely." On the other hand, Judaism gets a lot of people to "behave nicely." Buddhism gets a lot of people to "behave nicely." Yet each of these ethical codes or systems are quite arguably different at fundamental points. By your argument, though, you'd support Judaism as well as Nazism to the extent each gets people to "behave nicely."

      The same problem crops up here as well: "nicely" is apparently defined by what you happen to think is "nice." But what you happen to think is "nice" isn't necessarily what another person happens to think is "nice." Sure, you may brusquely wave your hand and say most of what people think constitutes "nice" is common. But my point is there are areas where "niceness" differs, which can involve fundamental ethical issues.

      "and if you admit that atheists also behave nicely, then I've made the only point which can be rationally discussed, barring evidence for God or His morals."

      No, this isn't "the only point which can be rationally discussed." At best, it's merely the only point you wish to discuss. Or are able to discuss.

      Atheists can "behave nicely." Not that all atheists do indeed "behave nicely." How are atheists who don't "behave nicely" living inconsistently with their atheism though?

      "Not many people engage in seppuku and that other nasty stuff"

      I'm surprised there isn't some sort of an Amber alert set up for all the points you keep missing.

      Remember you brought up the argument that "most of what both of us hold to be good rules is probably pretty much the same, and the same of people of all religions as well"? I brought up examples like seppuku, sati, and jihadi suicide bombing because there are fundamental differences in various people's and religions' and societies' ethics, which undercuts your argument. Your counterargument "Not many people engage" in such things therefore doesn't overturn the fact that different people can have fundamentally different ethics even if they largely agree on "most" of their ethics.

      Besides, I would say there are "many people" who engage in jihadi suicide bombing. (Although "many people" could be a bit of a weasle word or term in this case since it's quite vague.)

      However, even if one person does it, it's significant since he arguably was motivated by a certain ethic or moral (assuming atheism is true), and the fact that one person has a different ethic or moral doesn't necessarily mean it's a mistaken ethic or moral according to your atheism. It's just one hairy animal's opinion on ethics vs. another hairy animal's opinion on ethics, but why should one opinion be held in higher esteem than another?

      More broadly speaking but still related, why should peace be of value to a people-group rather than war? Maybe natural selection has shaped some peoples to be aggressive and warlike because aggression confers a survival advantage to the winner.

      Delete
    3. "And Western society's vaunted care for the poor is undergoing rough weather in the States."

      According to what standard?

      Even if this is true, you're the one making a distinction between the US and the rest of Western society. Not me. I simply said Western society.

      "Why is it, given the fact that the US is far more religious than Western Europe, that it also has far more homelessness and violence? Not a good poster child for Christianity."

      Among other things, this assumes "far more religious" in the US indicates "far more Christianity."

      Also, if this is indeed what you're indicating, then it still assumes "far more" is significant enough to make a difference in society. It could be that Western Europe is 1% Christian while the US is 10% Christian. 10% could therefore be "far more" than 1%. But why should 10% make a difference in a society in which the other 90% is, say, secular?

      Moreover, let's say the US is 90% Christian and 10% secular (while Western Europe is 10% Christian and 90% secular). However, let's also say the majority of people in American society who are in positions which are able to interact with the homeless and deal with violence are part of the 10% who are secular.

      "In any case, all you're doing is pointing out that societies fail to live up to moral standards- I'll heartily agree with you there."

      So you have in mind particular "moral standards." Why should your moral standards trump another society's? Why should another society subscribe to your moral standards? Ba-dum-ch.

      "But it remains to be shown that having a 'foundation' for 'objective morality' does any better than not having one- and I don't see any evidence for this."

      Results or outcomes aren't the issue. That's downstream whereas I'm talking upstream. The issue is there's no moral obligation on your atheism. It's not whether people behave morally or immorally on atheism, but whether people should behave morally or immorally on athesim.

      Further, although I'm sure you and I would agree what Dr. Joseph Mengele or Unit 731 did was morally wrong, on what basis do you say it was morally wrong on your atheism? On what basis do you say what occurred at Auschwitz was morally wrong on your atheism? (1) Because of society's values? But different societies have different values. (2) Because of a common bond between all humans for our evolutionary survival? But evolutionarily speaking why shouldn't one people-group's aggression against other weaker people-groups in our species confer a survival advantage to the victorious people-group, much in the same way as some argue is the case among groups of warring chimpanzees? (3) Because of your intuitions or sensibilities? But your intuitions could differ from another person's intuitions, just as you may like the color red but I like the color blue. (4) Do you have other reasons? If so, I'd like to hear them.

      Delete
    4. If morality is ultimately based in evolution, then it's possible it too could evolve. Perhaps someday we'll evolve to consider rape or murder are perfectly moral choices.

      Delete
  14. rocking- first of all, thanks for the ausführliche (lengthy, involved) answer. You've obviously thought a lot about these issues, and I respect that. I also agree that some of the questions you pose are not easy to answer: building society is like navigating without a compass, or better, with several compasses. It's something very new, geologically speaking; it's a dance that we must learn as we dance. Christianity is one, or rather many intertwined, ways of dancing; there are others.

    I suspect, as I've said before, that your morals and mine are probably not all that different. Most people in the world want to live in peace and make the world a better place for their children. That doesn't mean that it's easy or obvious what our rules and laws should be, but it's a starting point.

    Our main difference here seems to be that you insist upon having a foundation, or a moral obligation, for your rules. I don't see why we need any foundation or source of moral obligation, other than the desire to build society. It works for me- even though I'm hardly a paragon of humanity, I manage to get through the day without knocking down old ladies in the street or robbing banks.

    You say:

    If morality is ultimately based in evolution, then it's possible it too could evolve. Perhaps someday we'll evolve to consider rape or murder are perfectly moral choices.

    Perhaps- after all, the Israelites considered rape and murder (though under different names) perfectly moral choices (when practiced against God-ordained enemies), and I suppose that could happen again. But luckily, the general trend seems to be rather in the other direction- even slavery and genocide, which are condoned by the Bible in certain circumstances, are not considered civilized by most people nowadays.

    No easy answers here.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zilch said:

      "Our main difference here seems to be that you insist upon having a foundation, or a moral obligation, for your rules. I don't see why we need any foundation or source of moral obligation, other than the desire to build society."

      I don't have anything new to add. See above for my responses.

      "It works for me- even though I'm hardly a paragon of humanity, I manage to get through the day without knocking down old ladies in the street or robbing banks."

      I'm sure you're a nice guy, zilch. So no disrespect but you have a knack for avoiding interaction when presented with counter-argumentation.

      Of course, that's your prerogative. Maybe you're busy. And I certainly don't expect anyone to respond to what I say.

      At the same time, I'm not sure what you get out of any of this if you don't wish to interact.

      Speaking for myself, I write this hopefully for the benefit of lurkers and the like as well.

      "Perhaps- after all, the Israelites considered rape and murder (though under different names) perfectly moral choices (when practiced against God-ordained enemies), and I suppose that could happen again."

      As you know since you've brought it up before, Triablogue (among others) have covered this ground in the past. Just search Triablogue's archives.

      Even if this is true (which I don't think is the case), it doesn't absolve naturalistic evolution from my criticism.

      If naturalistic evolution is true, there's no objective moral wrong with rape and murder.

      "But luckily, the general trend seems to be rather in the other direction- even slavery and genocide, which are condoned by the Bible in certain circumstances, are not considered civilized by most people nowadays."

      You've already barked up this tree in the past. Just search Triablogue for responses.

      Given naturalistic evolution, what "direction" is there? As others have pointed out, natural selection is blind and unguided.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure you're a nice guy, zilch. So no disrespect but you have a knack for avoiding interaction when presented with counter-argumentation.

      I could say exactly the same to you, rocking. For instance, you say:

      If naturalistic evolution is true, there's no objective moral wrong with rape and murder.

      I must have said at least dozens of times here (check the Triablogue archives) that I don't believe in "objective" morals, but you have yet to interact with that: you simply keep repeating that I have none, or that I have no "moral obligation" or no "foundation for morals", all of which I have cheerfully admitted many times. You have yet to show why I should believe in such absolutes, or why the world is better if people believe in such absolutes.

      But I think you're right- there's probably not much point in beating a dead horse. We both have better stuff to do in the real world.

      cheers from cool Vienna, zilch

      Delete
    3. zilch said:

      "I must have said at least dozens of times here (check the Triablogue archives) that I don't believe in 'objective' morals, but you have yet to interact with that:"

      On the contrary, I've interacted with what you've said. See my comments in this post, for example.

      Moreover, you yourself said: "rocking- first of all, thanks for the ausführliche (lengthy, involved) answer. You've obviously thought a lot about these issues, and I respect that."

      Anyway, people can simply read or re-read our comments in this thread and judge for themselves.

      "you simply keep repeating that I have none, or that I have no 'moral obligation' or no 'foundation for morals', all of which I have cheerfully admitted many times."

      Among other issues, you fail to appreciate the implications of all this for your position.

      "You have yet to show why I should believe in such absolutes"

      I don't care to show why you "should believe in such absolutes." I only care to show your position is logically inconsistent.

      "or why the world is better if people believe in such absolutes."

      This is irrelevant since this was never my argument in the first place.

      Delete