Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
John Adams and Alexander Solzhenitsyn Were Right
A huge reason for the success of Western Civilization is that our Judeo-Christian faith focuses on improving yourself. You are made in God’s image. Act like it. Look inside yourself. Are there improvements that you could make in your soul? Well sure, but that’s really hard. But with God – the creator and master of the entire universe – watching you and taking a personal interest in your soul, perhaps you might give it a try. So we work at it. With varying degrees of success, to be sure, but we work at it. Our religious leaders are constantly imploring us to study the lessons of the Bible, and take them to heart. Don’t criticize others when you are so flawed. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and so on. Fix yourself first. A society full of Jews and Christians who truly believe in their God and seek to please him; that society is generally a pretty nice place.
John Adams was characteristically insightful when he observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I would argue that this is true not only of our Constitution but also of any other government ever conceived.
Adams’ point is that if the behavior of people is not governed by their religion, then it must be governed by their government. He was a student of history. He knew that that does not end well.
In Matthew 22:21 Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” He understood that government was necessary to manage the affairs of men, but when it comes to managing really important things, like our souls, only God could do that. I would presume that students of the 20th century could reach no other conclusion.
Because government, understandably, takes a different approach. The government manages citizens and things, not souls. So it is essentially in the business of telling people what to do, and what not to do. What else could the government do? There is no other way.
In Christianity, you seek to improve yourself. In government, you seek to improve others. Modern progressives and others who have a great deal of faith in the power of government to improve our lives should stop and consider this very important distinction. And they should consider how well this has worked in the past.
Over the course of history, this has been tried in many different ways. Tribes governed by chiefs. Kingdoms governed by royal families. Socialist systems. Communist systems. And so on and so forth. They all look different on the outside, but on the inside, they’re all the same. They involve telling other people what to do. And for whatever reason, this doesn’t seem to work very well. In fact, these systems seem to rapidly, and consistently, devolve from ineffective to catastrophic. Every time. There is no other way.
It would appear that the only way to improve a society full of people is to improve the actual people. One at a time. From the inside out.
Teachers recognize this phenomenon. A kid from a good family is easy to teach. A kid from a horrible home will be either very difficult or impossible to improve, no matter how talented and dedicated his teachers are. The damage is done. There’s nothing to work with. And good teachers can recognize which kid is which by the end of the first week of school. They know which kids will be in college prep courses, and which will be in detention. They do their best with everybody, of course. But they know how things will turn out. They’ve seen it before.
So as we abandon our religious faith as individuals, we hope that improved government can maintain this very nice society to which we have been accustomed. And despite its flaws, our government is certainly one of the best in the world.
But it doesn’t matter. The damage is done. There’s nothing to work with. Teachers would understand. John Adams was right.
Viktor Frankl felt that freedom was a negative aspect (a lack of something – a lack of oppressive government), and that the corresponding positive aspect was responsibility. He said, “I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.” He didn’t understand how one could exist without the other.
The government can’t create 300 million responsible, moral individuals, by fiat. That is the work of parents, and of the church. There is no other way.
We’ve tried other ways. Those who believe that morality and ethics can be created by pure reason should stop and think about that if they study the history of the 20th century. Or even studied the history of any era, if you think about it.
To look deep into oneself, and critically judge what one sees, and then undertake to improve upon it to the very best of your ability – that is agonizingly difficult. The government cannot encourage us to do that. Only religion can.
On the contrary, if our behavior is governed by a system of laws, then it is only natural to work around and within those laws as effectively as possible. Most people are reasonable, and that is a reasonable thing to do. But even if your behavior is reasonable, and even legal, it may not be ethical. Which seems harmless. But as it turns out, it’s not harmless. Thousands of years worth of brilliant men, from Moses to Solzhenitsyn, have spent their lives explaining to us why this is so incredibly dangerous.
We pursue wealth and technological advancements to make our lives easier. And it works. I don’t walk to work. I drive a car. With air conditioning. It’s nice. Much easier than walking. And I like easy. We all hope to avoid things that are difficult. That effort to make difficult things easier is human nature, and it leads to many of the things that make our modern lives so pleasant. We prefer easy things over difficult things.
So we naturally prefer the government to religion. Religion is hard. Improving myself is really hard. It’d be so much easier for me to just tell other people what to do. Would I rather seek out the worst flaws of my character and endure the agony of brutal self-criticism and go through difficult work needed to improve them? Or would I rather put a political bumper sticker on my car and go vote? One can understand why so many people choose the bumper sticker.
Who will get more votes? The 1700’s theologian Jonathan Edwards, whose stump speech is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?” Or Bernie Sanders, who says you can do whatever you like, and he’ll give you whatever you want? Actually, forget Jonathan Edwards. A nice, unthreatening Republican can’t win elections if he simply suggests that someone has to pay for all of Bernie’s programs. That sounds hard. We, naturally, prefer easy.
Some will choose the bumper sticker. They always have. Understandably. But what happens when a quarter of us do that? Or half? That’s when things get dicey. And then, inevitably, violent.
Choosing the easy path makes things difficult, eventually. It always does.
There is no other way.
When I have an idea for a post, I often just write it as it appears in my head – just dump it onto the page, with little concern for quality. I type fast. This part generally takes 20-30 minutes. No more, because I get bored as quickly as I type.
Once my thoughts are on the page, I save it, and come back to it in a week or a month, when I feel like posting something. At that point, I’ll generally reorganize it, cut its length by half or so, and clean it up in an effort to achieve, well, coherence, at least. This part takes another 20-30 minutes, usually, unless my original version was total garbage. If this part takes more than 30 minutes, I’ll generally consider that post hopeless, dump it, and try another old first draft to work on, if I’m still in the mood.
I came back to this post today to clean it up, and thought, “Eh, whatever.” I’ve been doing that more and more recently. Sorry about that.
So to paraphrase somebody famous that I’m too lazy too look up, “Sorry this is so long, because I was too lazy to make it short.” Or something like that. It’s easier to just post it.
Again, we often choose the easy way. And that leads to sloppy essays and deadly government.
You’re lucky I’m just writing an essay, and not writing policy.
Published in General
It would make one a sociopath. Surely there are sociopaths who do not understand that other people have an expectation to be treated with respect. But we don’t run society that way.
I don’t recall ever saying that. I recall saying that we come to understand morality, right and wrong, because we understand that other people also exist the same way we do.
That is some strange logic. “Getting in trouble” is not the standard for morality. You can certainly get in trouble for carrying a fake grenade launcher on an airplane. But if you intend no harm, and the device is truly incapable of causing harm, then you’ve done nothing immoral. Unwise? Yes. Worthy of punishment? Not if you ask me, but yes if you ask the police, apparently. But the act is not immoral.
And your example of a surreptitious theft is ludicrous. Immorality is not dependent on being caught, and only a sociopath would claim such a thing, and I know you didn’t mean that.
Morality is absolute. Our societal understanding may be flawed, but that’s a different matter.
Two questions:
What, specifically, are these unique values (as opposed to explanatory beliefs) that are not found in other traditions?
And
What historical traditions does the J-C tradition include? Islamic tradition in South Asia, for example, is a vehicle that preserves some Persian pre-Islamic stories and characteristics because of how how Islam came to North India.
According to you, the only obligation to treat others with respect is derived from my own self-interest; the only thing wrong with the sociopath is that he doesn’t understand his own interests very well.
I also note that you do not come anywhere near answering my question. Whence moral guilt? A murderer, on your account, lacks the enlightened understanding that his own interests are served by treating others with respect. What is wrong with him is precisely this and no more. But there is no guilt in that.
And, again, if I could steal and murder and get away with it through magical powers, what according to you would be actually wrong with that?
That is precisely what you said. The only answer you actually gave to the question where moral obligation comes from is this:
Perhaps you’d like to try a different answer?
According to your own answer in # 111, morality is based on enlightened self-interest in this way: I understand that if I harm others I may be harmed in turn. From this it follows that immorality depends not on being caught but at least on the possibility of being caught.
If you think that is ludicrous, I tend to agree. But you should go back to # 111 and try to give a clearer account of what morality is and where it comes from.
Indeed. I recommend replacing or clarifying your answer from # 111.
Context bahote zarui hai, Zafar Sahib. Ich bari example iter hai:
Acha! You’ve given me the opportunity to comment on one thing I keep thinking about mentioning. In these conversations Ricocheti are arguably unfair to Islam (if perhaps fair to some Muslims). Islam teaches, by tradition, Hadith, or Quran, such principles as:
–human beings are the image of G-d;
–no adultery;
–whoever murders one person is guilty of murdering all;
–don’t cheat your customers;
–do unto others as you want them to do unto you; and
–there is no racial distinction between different groups of humans that matters at all.
That’s pretty darn good!
Traditions are complicated and big, and they overlap and interact. We can describe any tradition or group of traditions we like, and we should use terms that fit what we’re describing.
For whatever reason, people in the west often talk about the “Judeo-Christian tradition.” To answer your question: That probably does not include Islam.
That’s fine. But nothing prevents us from talking of the “Abrahamic religious tradition” or something like that, and this would include Islam.
If we are talking about how human beings actually think, the #111 answer is probably an accurate account of human behavior.
If we are developing an abstract moral philosophy than # 121 is more accurate.
Many scholars have argued that there are moral codes older than the Bible that are morally superior.
Did Buddha ever give people instructions on how they could acquire slaves?
Ok, that’s fine.
# 111 is a great answer to the question what motivates most people to be moral. (And it’s not a bad motivation, as far as it goes.)
But the question to which it was responding was: Where does moral obligation come from?
I concur with # 121, but # 121 does not answer that question.
Notice that very few people are moving from “the secular West” to Islamic nations.
Christian nations such as El Salvador (proportionately more Christian than the United States of America) and the nation of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet you don’t see people trying to move to these nations either.
This seems like solid evidence that the “Abrahamic religious tradition” that you speak of supports “values” that are repulsive to human beings.
That’s not at all what I said. I said that is one way to perceive it. And it’s not just for self-interest, but for the interest of all.
Why is it hard to see what we live everyday? Guilt exists regardless of whether it is perceived, or whether it is punished or even if it is approved of by others.
Getting away with a crime does not diminish the crime.
It’s the theists who seem to think that some all seeing and all knowing being must disapprove and somehow punish in some unreal plane of existence in order for something to be wrong. No. It is wrong by its own nature.
Well, I’m not going to agree that you interpreted me correctly, but I won’t get bogged by semantics. I’ve said clearly many times that morality exists prior to perception: Morality is absolute. \
It’s pathetically basic. They also advocate for a lot of very evil things.
If it is okay for me to steal from other people it is okay for other people to steal from me.
If it is okay for people to steal from each other society becomes more defensive, more violent, less prosperous (we spend more defending ourselves). iow a less pleasant place to live – even if I, myself, am not personally the target of a thief.
That, rather than being caught, is the crux of enlightened self-interest.
There are a few options here.
[1] Moral obligation comes from the super law of the universe.
This might be called naturalistic pantheism.
[2] Moral obligation comes from God, but this God is neither Jewish nor Christian nor Muslim and did not authorize or inspire the Bible or the Koran.
My honest answer is that I don’t think we really know where moral obligations come from. But all non-sociopaths instinctively believe that human beings have moral obligations to other human beings.
Some human beings even believe that they have moral obligations to their dog. If your next door neighbor frequently beats his dog, you might think of him as immoral for doing so.
No, for once I am not banging on about how bigoted Ricochet is about Islam (specifically).
Just about every religious tradition in the world includes an aspect that valorises values like: be kind, forgive, be honest.
My point is: there are different explanatory beliefs that support these (made in the image of God [Christianity, and not believed by Muslims, btw], In the Koran and Hadith [Muslims], Dharma [Hinduism]) but the values are pretty similar.
There are families of religions whose supporting beliefs can be seen to have a resemblance (the Abrahamic religions, and perhaps all Middle-Eastern religions, see God as Judge [weighing your Ka against a feather?] while Dharmic religions focus on the laws of consequence) but somehow there are still many similar values across a very broad range of religious traditions in terms of how human beings should live their lives.
Some, to be sure, do. None I ever met in Pakistan.
Nor do I know enough about the Quran to comment on exactly what other values may be entailed by it.
I’ll certainly grant that a separation of church and state does not seem to be consistent with the Quran. (However, Islamic philosopher Allama Iqbal’s view of the harmony of mosque and state is probably consistent with Locke’s view of the separation of church and state. Someday I may try to figure this out.)
I ask again: what, specifically, is this Judaeo-Christian tradition?
If it was all about Bible and Torah then Addis Ababa would more in common with Amsterdam than it does with Khartoum – and it’s my understanding is that this is not the case. (MKs from Africa can weigh in at any time on this, btw.)
So what comprises this JC tradition that excites people so?
Pre-Christian traditions of English Common Law?
Relaxing about the Sabbath?
Accommodating Godlessness?
Representative Democracy?
The Scientific method?
Freedom of expression?
I’m not saying any of these are necessarily not part of the JC tradition, just asking if they are part of what this is about?
It’s solid evidence that something is wrong. But that could be many things:
–those religious values are right, but these countries are failing to live up to their own values,
–those religious values are wrong,
–or there are other values (perhaps, e.g., something from Enlightenment philosophy) that people also care about.
Your view, I take it, is the second of these options, maybe also the third, and certainly not the first!
Interesting conclusions, to be sure. What are your premises for them?
From what I’ve read of your comments, it appears the only answer you have given so far to the question where moral obligation comes from is this from # 111:
Here you directly state that moral obligation comes from self-interest. You plainly do not state this is only one way to perceive it.
You also say:
None of this amounts to a remark that there are other ways to perceive morality, or some other source of morality.
Perhaps you’d like to try again answering the question:
There is such a thing as moral obligation the violation of which incurs guilt. Where does that moral obligation come from?
Indeed it does exist regardless.
So you evidently do not think morality comes from self-interest. Why don’t you tell me where it does come from?
That was logic, not semantics.
But yes–you have said that it is absolute. That still does not answer the question: Where does morality come from?
Or are you trying to answer it by saying that it is absolute?
If so, could you elaborate? I don’t know what you mean by that.
I thought I’d answered plainly enough.
It’s the combined traditions of Judaism and Christianity. What a lot of people mean by the term seems to include a fair amount of ideas that arose in cultures under the influence of Judaism or Christianity.
I don’t know what most people are thinking. I think a lot of them are emphasizing the idea that humans have intrinsic worth because they are created in the image of G-d, and some of them are also emphasizing the Ten Commandments.
I don’t think I use the term much myself. If I do I’ll be thinking of those things, and probably few if any of these. (However, at least some of these do have connections to biblical morality or epistemology.)
The difference between atheists and theists is that atheists can just say, “I don’t know.” We are not obliged to know all things. We needn’t pretend to know the source to know that it doesn’t come from magic.
If your answer is “I don’t know,” why did you give another?
I think “I don’t know” is actually a great answer. (Contrary to your accusation against theists, our extreme ignorance of many things is a point often made in Christian theology.)
What you know nothing of, I do have an explanation for. Of course, it has precisely nothing at all to do with magic.
To rephrase:
The value believed is: humans have intrinsic worth.
The explanation is: because they are created in the image of God.
But most religious traditions believe that humans have intrinsic worth while they have a bunch of different explanations for why.
So does ‘defending’ a tradition mean defending a belief (which a lot of other traditions hold, so it’s not actually that controversial, it’s like defending Apple Pie, everybody likes it) or does it mean defending an explanation (in which case: why is it important?).
Good questions. Maybe someone else should answer since I hardly ever use the term myself. I could make some sort of tentative answer.
Non-religious philosophy has not done any better than to say it without giving an explanation. Very commonly, it is denied.
The value of the Abrahamic doctrine is probably greater in its theological context.
In context of Hindu theology, e.g., the value of humans is linked to their immortal souls, and the sufferings of this life are often taken as just punishment for the last life. No distinction is drawn between man and beast in eternity, and a distinction between castes in this life is drawn.
In the Abrahamic traditions this life is the only one, there is a difference between man and beast. Matter is created good by G-d, and nothing in this world is maya, illusion. The intrinsic worth of a human is a doctrine to be applied in this life and by concrete means.
I’m out and on a phone. I don’t know if this reply is ok, but I’m giving up anyway.
What is a super law?
Interesting that you only mention religious explanations for moral law.
But why is inspiration of a holy book not an option?
I dig.
A law that gives rise to other laws.
Inspiration of a holy book is one option among many.
Point [2] was intended to show that someone could believe in a God while not being convinced that Jesus rose from the dead or that Moses received the moral law from God or that Mohammed received the word of God from an angel in a cave.
I actually think that many Americans who call themselves Christian actually don’t really believe that the Bible was authored or inspired by God and, thus, do not spend too much time consulting it when confronting moral questions. I think this is a positive development, not a negative one.
There is another option.
[3] There is no source of objective morality. Instead, objective morality is something that many human beings believe exists because they believe that certain human actions are right/wrong, desirable/not-desirable.
So, just as human beings perceive the Sun rising and setting each day because the Earth is spinning on its axis, many human beings perceive there to be something called objective morality, even though morality is dependent upon the perspective of human beings: human beings have values in the eyes of human beings.
Perhaps this is actually the case. Perhaps there is no grounding or source of objective morality and objective morality is much like objective journalism, something to be strived for but never achieved.
Off topic. Here is a video of someone interviewing Mormon missionaries.
Let’s stop a couple of Mormon missionaries
It’s almost an hour long.