BHN: Thus I conclude that “moral laws” are no more an invention of man than physical laws.
Vianne: I would disagree slightly. The physical laws are the predetermined workings of the universe; the moral laws, or more appropriately the behavioral laws, come from human observation of those laws, somewhat like a map to guide us through life as humans. I imagine if the behavioral laws for a cat or a slug would be somewhat different, despite the fact that the physical laws of the universe have not altered in the least. A cat might avoid dunking itself in water, for example, and a slug might make a note to avoid salt. People, on the other hand, can roll in salt and then jump in a lake and be just fine. What’s different? Not the chemistry of the water or the salt. Just the organism interacting with them. The physical laws do not change; the behavioral laws change with what is deemed most helpful as time goes on. We no longer avoid pork, for instance, because we now have better means of sanitizing and preserving it.
You say one might expect that behavioral laws for cats and slugs would be different, even though physical laws have not altered.
By way of explanation you then point out cats avoid water and slugs avoid salt, and humans avoid neither.
I fail to understand your explanation.
You have demonstrated that just as the effect of behavior laws of cats and slugs differ from each other and from humans, so also the effect of physical laws differ among species. That is to say yes, the physical laws remain the same, but will dictate different action or effect on various species.
Physical laws prescribe the effect salt will have concerning various species, and those effects will vary from beneficial to deadly, depending on the species, and in some cases depending on the individual.
Moral laws prescribe the effect killing will have on various species, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not.
Certainly I am not advocating that all morality by all cultures are eternal or co-existing with physical laws. Your example of pork, and indeed any example, can be credited to be the invention of a particular culture. This does not mean that there are not a limited number of moral laws which have co-existed with the physical laws.
The question I ask myself is not ‘Are some moral laws arbitrary and an invention of man?’, but rather “Are some moral laws beneficial to a culture, even if they are disregarded, ignored or undetected by that same culture?’.
Childhood sacrifice or euthanasia might well be a valued part of a particular culture. This does not mean it does not violate a higher moral law than that proposed by the local priests.
Childhood sexual molestation may be a valued sacred practice indispensable to clan happiness, but. . . .
I do believe that some who put value on absolute morals are too restrictive and short sighted. In their efforts to be clear and true to the absolute standard they have accepted, they try to over-generalize.
Concerning physical laws, if I simply said ‘Because of gravity, any ball bearing dropped from a certain height will fall to the ground at a certain speed in a certain direction’ I would be equally short sighted and restrictive. I would have to understand and allow that magnetic and other forces could/would cause the ball bearing to violate my inadequate description of the effects of gravity on all ball bearings. Knowing the laws of gravity alone will not allow me to correctly predict the effect of gravity on all ball bearings in all situations.
If I say ‘Do not kill others of the same species’ is a moral law, and once violated will always cause greater harm than good, I would be short sighted and too restrictive.
If I say “Childhood sacrifice and euthanasia are always and everywhere violations of an absolute moral law against such actions’, I would be too restrictive, never imagining a society where overpopulation and a lack of basic needs would cause great suffering and a slow and agonizing death for the majority of children.
In applying physical laws, one needs to know all of the conditions present to properly apply the laws.
Properly applied, gasoline can extinguish a fire, all the while following all physical laws. Improperly applied, the gasoline will fuel the fire.
Scientists go to great extremes to eliminate all outside forces/conditions in the study and determination of physical laws. If there is not total isolation, the results are of questionable value.
Yet many who advocate for enforcement of moral laws want to say that extenuating circumstances are of no concern.
For them there is a duality that exists, separating moral and physical laws. The rules are different.
I see no duality.
If we look at the physical laws, and how they are demonstrated, observed, followed, we have a pattern for moral laws, as they are part of one whole.
There is a difference of course in that it seems physical laws “must” be obeyed. Given sufficient or complete information about the material things at hand, the laws will allow one to predict outcomes.
It seems concerning the behavior of living things, moral laws do not act this way. The moral law may say ‘In this situation, the child should not be killed’, and yet the child is killed. Knowing the moral law beforehand did not allow us to predict that the child would not be killed. And yet, if I am correct, knowing the moral law would allow us to predict that this action will have a negative effect on the killer and society in general.
BHN: Christians (for example), get their morality from the scriptures.
Vianne: And where did they get it from? The Jews and the Pagans (which is another debate entirely, I realize that). Where did they get it from? Those who founded those faiths. At some point in time, however, someone many years ago had to have noted that stealing or lying caused others to distrust and dislike him, and often resulted in conflict and relationship difficulties. This in turn was recognized to be socially harmful. Therefore when someone wrote down the codes for the tribe to abide by, they remembered this, and mentioned that their people should not take what does not belong to them or bear false witness. This in turn was eventually accepted as the Word of God, and was passed down accordingly. This is what I mean by what is socially beneficial being the determining factor in deciding morality – those people who, as you mentioned, established “morality” long before any of us where born.
How does this explain arbitrary and artificial morality?
Length of hair and manner of dress are often concerns of the peoples of the books, yet seem to serve no purpose than to make for easy identification of the true believers.
Observance of particular days on the calendar similarly have strong moral associations with no intrinsic value except for unity of the clan.
Hunter-gatherers and agrarians needed to be aware of particular seasons, and we surmise this lead to observance of particular days, but the sacred writings demand moral observance of particular days beyond what can be observed as beneficial.
I am not saying all morality from the sacred writings are divinely inspired, independent of observation and need.
I am saying followers of religions look to the sacred writings for all of their moral guidelines, many times disregarding what observation and reasoning might reveal to them.
You mentioned Christians get their morality from the Bible, and yet you do not see them stoning adulterers, killing unbelievers or (very) rebellious children, or executing promiscuous daughters of pastors. Many of them are against spanking, as well, despite the Biblical incentive to not “spare the rod”. They wear clothing of mixed fabrics and don’t ostracize a woman from society while she is menstruating. Many of them divorce for reasons other than adultery, as well. I don’t think it’s because the law would intervene in any of these cases, either.
Why? They’ve figured out that in many cases, counseling (or discussing one’s differences) is more effective than killing, there is nothing particularly evil about a menstruating woman (although this may be regarded as a purity issue that was discarded after Christ), and leaving an abusive spouse is sometimes preferable to sticking it out (even if he or she has been faithful) -- despite what the Bible says on all these topics.
I stand by my statement that Christians get their morality from the bible. What you explain is that their interpretation of the bible varies, based on observation, common sense, or plain old pragmatism.
Pragmatism shapes their interpretation of biblical morals, we agree.
They do not look first to society, to determine what is common, or unusual, allowable or prohibited.
They look first to the bible, and to the best of their ability follow the mandates set forth. At times their understanding of the scriptures, and their observance of the real world, causes them to take a second look. The interpretation is modified, as you suggest.
Simply because a mountain stream meanders through the plains, does not meant the stream does not come from the mountains.
A supreme being does not need to tell us that bad interpersonal relationship skills produce bad interpersonal relationships.
I agree completely. As a Deist I believed there is no divine revelation to mankind.
Hence, people created morality based on what they found helpful or hurtful in their dealings with others.
Surely you would not say we need a supreme being to tell us gravity will cause things to fall to earth. Nor would you say because we need no supreme being to tell us the physical laws, they have been created by man.
If the natural world has laws which can be discerned by man without god, I say it is the same for moral laws.
Vianne: Polytheistic cultures tended to be accepting of the gods (and religious practices) of others, not knowing what that god might be like, or what he or she may demand from her followers. This tolerant attitude also helped polytheistic cultures to be accepting of “neutral” ways of thinking.
Monotheistic cultures, on the other hand, tended to believe that because they worship the only real god, they are right and all others are wrong, and therefore they have a right to sway others to their way of thinking. You’ll notice most polytheistic societies lacked the holy wars that monotheistic ones suffered from.
I see your point.
