Morality, the chosen definition matters a lot

Unless we don't care about long term consequences

To start, I refer my children back to the introduction to my last post on the topic. In the interest of brevity, I will leave this, as I think rehashing my statement is redundant and a waste of space.

Yes! We had a third child, and she is a beautiful little thing. Thank you! I never cease to be amazed at my wife's endless love and patience, even if I personally try to test those limits. (As an aside to her, my apologies for the total lack of help sometime between midnight and 5:00am last night.)

First and foremost, well done, Von. You got my mind working. In a time with a new baby, full time work and being back in school, that is an impressive feat. I have been mulling over your response for some time, so, thank you.

I want to start with an obvious point of disagreement. You state that “he misquotes me. He does it very nicely and, I believe, unintentionally, but he does it.  I wrote several things, but not quite what he said.”

I must state, rather bluntly, that this is false. I made no attempt to quote you at this point, I merely attempted to distill and summarize the points I felt you were making. What I said was, “I would like to reiterate the points I believe you are making. This ensures that if I have misunderstood, that can be corrected. Without doing so, my statements may be applied by others to what they understood your points to be, not what I understood them to be.”

It would seem my attempt to reiterate your argument fell short on this point. If only one of my five fell short, I would say that means your writing was clear and well articulated, so well done. I will attempt to respond to the clarified argument, as presented in your last post.

As a matter of housekeeping, and efficiency, moving forward, I will try to keep quotes from our posts to a minimum; they are readily linked to and available to read. I will always try to summarize, or condense, for two reasons: it is easier to read, and if I misinterpret, you can correct the record, as you did.

In this case, I assume that my failure is that we are discussing objective “right” and “wrong” vs. “preferences.” I also added the word universal, when you were speaking of an objective morality.

To address the definition of morality, as given in your post, we will need to whittle it down a bit, as it is a bit circular. “Morality is the doctrine or systems of moral duties.” What are moral duties? It then says that morality is ethics, which seems a bit odd to include, given that the very heart of your argument seems to be that morality is external, and comes from God. I know of no person who argues that is the case for ethics. Another word it gives to explain morality is virtue, after again self referencing morality as “the practice of moral duties.” If I am unaware of what morality is, how would I know what morals or moral duty are?

This leaves us with the final bit of the definition:

MORAL'ITY, noun
The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.

There are either two separate definitions above, or an assumption. The assumption must be that for something to be good, it must be in conformity to divine law. Indeed, the definition confirms this by stating that we often apply the word to actions, failing to take into account the motives.

This is where I will disappoint, and why the post has taken a week. I must confess, I have absolutely no argument against this, if that is your definition of morality. If we are accepting a definition from almost two centuries ago, ignoring how language has changed in the past two-hundred years, than you are correct. If there is no God, and our definition of morality requires God, there can be no hope. Let me go buy some heroine and pick up a prostitute, it is all for naught!

Here is my problem. I am not typing this on my pre-Civil War laptop. Andrew Jackson did not just win the election, and Argentina is not forming as a nation. I fully concede that I would need to change my entire argument if we were a few hundred years back, or most likely give it up. From our current Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Morality, noun

a doctrine or system of moral conduct

Moral, adjective

of or relating to the principles of right and wrong in behavior: ethical
expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
conforming to a standard of right behavior
capable of right and wrong action

To regurgitate this, morality is, as I and most of society uses it, a system of distinguishing right behavior from wrong behavior. Thus, a moral agent is one capable of choosing between right and wrong actions.

And thus, we have the question, can we establish an objective system of distinguishing between right and wrong behavior. Again, from our current dictionary:

OBJECT'IVE, adjective

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

I posit that there is both subjective and objective morality, and that those can be in clear conflict. I am not going to belabor the point on subjective morality, I will merely give an example. Anyone familiar with criminal codes of conduct knows that to snitch is wrong. This is subjective morality, in direct conflict with objective morality.

To be objective, it must be perceptible to all people. Thus, murder is wrong. How can I make that leap, when people commit this heinous act daily in the world? Any observer who witnesses their loved ones gunned down in cold blood will respond in a similar fashion, namely with grief, anger, a desire for justice. Theft is wrong. Anyone who has their property taken unjustly will appeal for justice. Not to God, but to other humanity, the laws, the authorities.

For something to be objectively moral, it must be able to be applied universally to humankind.

This takes us to the example of chimpanzees. To be honest, I re-read this part more times than I can recall, and am lost. I cannot judge a chimpanzee for behavior that is normal in the animal kingdom, although it appears bizarre to humans. Animals kill their young all the time, and for many reasons. A weak and disabled baby may bring death to the entire group if it is incapable of integrating, or controlling its behavior. Nature is harsh, but that is beside the point. Sharks eating their young does not mean humans should. Spiders eating their mates does not mean I want my wife to grab a butcher knife post intimacy; although, if she is going to murder me to eat my flesh, I would prefer she give me one last hoorah before my demise.

I will readily admit that I am tired, and may have missed the point on this.

I believe that animals came in to this because of my statement that even animals can develop codes of morality through play. To clarify, I am arguing that if animals can find a morality without appealing to God, then obviously humans can, because we are smarter and more aware. I will never argue that because animals fail to get to a high level of moral conduct, we likewise cannot. Indeed, I am stating the opposite; if animals can achieve a basic level of morality, essentially a universally accepted code of conduct within that species, than how much more capable are we of attaining a strong and well reasoned code of behavior?

“Morality is objective. It is external.  Webster’s speaks of ‘renders it good’, taking for granted that there exists an external standard of ‘good’ to which the action can conform.”
-Von, “Pizza, Sushi and the Definition of Morality”

Which brings us to the point of '“external.” External to whom? To an individual, or to the species as a whole? Your post goes on to make clear that you mean external to the species as a whole, as well as all mortal species. This statement limits the sole option to God. I have no argument against this, obviously. If we limit the standard to must be applied from outside the species, than obviously we have no hope of implementing a moral code for ourselves.

At this point, I ask myself, how do we implement this? Who can check to make sure we have properly understood the will of this Being? What happens when we misunderstand His morality, because we are flawed? Who clarifies when two people understand differently?

Indeed, I am arguing that accepting God as the sole source of objective morality for the whole of humanity is a recipe for disaster, because we are so deeply imperfect and so beautifully unique.

How does one know God’s morality? The Quran? The Talmud? The Bible? Which version? The Catholic Bible? King James Version? New American Standard Bible? What about when two passages contradict each other, which takes precedence? Who can one trust to interpret the words? How does one know that their interpretation is correct?

In the end, this objective morality becomes highly subjective. Does the rule against homosexuality matter more than not mixing ones fabrics? How do we square not killing and the killing done by God’s chosen people, at his command, immediately after? In the end, I cannot see how any of that is objective; rather it is the subjective ideas and preferences of the individual which shape how we interpret and apply the teachings. It also seems highly internal, in that some people have a bias towards mercy, while others justice.

From my own life, I can tell you that I actually behave more morally (as I am using this word) and ethically now than I did when fully ensconced in a strict Christian religion. By placing the onus of behavior externally, I was able to justify any behavior I wanted, so long as it was not expressly forbidden. This was not in the spirit of Christian law, it was more akin to the Law of Moses, but alas, I was a teenager, and deeply flawed. Instead of taking someone else’s interpretation of right and wrong, written thousands of years ago, I had to actually ponder and think, and trust that little voice we each have, sometimes called a conscience, or sometimes referred to as the Light of Christ.

Placing our morality externally, in the hands of a Book written long ago, or in its interpretation as carried out by others, takes away our responsibility and duty. Our duty is to behave in a correct manner to ourselves and others, are as I call it, The Golden Rule. In Biblical terms:

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”
-Luke Chapter 6, Verse 31

I am not sure anything can be truly universal, but there are things close enough to be considered that. Humans want to be treated with dignity and respect, and thus, should treat others with dignity and respect. Humans do not want to be murdered, thus, they should not murder. Parents do not want their children sexually abused, and therefore should not sexually abuse the children of others, or their own for that matter. Why do I say I am not sure anything can be considered universal? Even the most basic of those statements above have exceptions; there are weird people who like being degraded and humiliated. Although, even within the exception, it tends to only be in certain circumstances and by certain people. They probably do not want a random stranger running up to them and spitting in their face.

It seems to me that the entire Bible is one long story arc, from creation, through the fall and on to redemption. In that story arc, there is also a morality arc. First it is a simple command not to eat the fruit. That is followed up with a very proscriptive, and dare I say oddly specific, set of rules regarding many aspects of life. Finally, that law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and replaced with a higher law. Instead of choosing between commandments, we are instructed to forgive and love.

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
-Matthew 22: 36-40

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” sounds an awful lot like that Golden Rule again, and apparently the entirety of morality (if defined as obedience to God’s law) hangs on that Golden Rule.

Animals create a morality as they play, by deciding whether to continue playing in a social game. If the behavior of one participant is bad, the others choose not to play with them. Eventually this habit gets ingrained into an animal, and a mild form of animal ethics or morality arises. The more intelligent and socially complex the creature, the more elaborate the morality.

Are we not a member of the animal kingdom? Obviously we are the most complex and intelligent, and this lends itself to far more complex understandings of morality and right behavior. This happens continually through play. What else is a small child doing when caring for a doll, other than play acting what she has witnessed her Mother doing? She is rehearsing, and trying to figure out what exactly it is that a good Mother does. Children play house and family all the time, as a way to sort through what these mean, and how it is to be done properly. They also learn through play that we treat with respect, that we do not cheat and lie, and that we abide by rules set. If they do not, they stop playing, and that is about the worst thing that can happen to a child!

Through play, observation, and discourse, we learn and teach morality.

Can I tell my child not to lie because God does not like it? Absolutely I can. But I can also explain the reason in human terms. For a young child it may suffice to say that you do not like it when other people lie to you, so do not do it to others. For an older child, you may explain that once others know you lie, they will not trust you in the future. Once that happens, it ups to risk of interacting with you socially, and therefore would require a higher reward before people are willing to include you. You might get some short term gain by a lie, but you will lose out in the long run.

Can I tell my kids not to steal without explaining it as a commandment from God? Yes, and again, it can be done at different levels depending on age, comprehension and maturity. Or you can take their Monopoly money, and let them respond. It would be a valuable lesson as to why theft is wrong. The same can be said for any other behavior, right or wrong, under the sun.

Is this objective and external? I would say yes, based on the near universal involuntary response of humans to injustices. Almost across the board, if a human watched a random person get shot in the face by a stranger, they would have a visceral, involuntary, natural response. The same is true if a person were to watch someone be sexually assaulted, or catch someone lying. And if you are caught cheating? Reviled. Just ask the 2017 Astros.

What about exceptions, of which there are plenty in history? I see a land mine up ahead, and feel I should run right at it. Here goes! It seems to me that most often, when our naturally evolved, embedded sense of right and wrong goes haywire, it is due to a hijacking of our innate goodness, by people who believe and can convince others that what they are doing is just and right. Coincidentally, this is often done by people claiming that God wants something, and it is therefore correct. Jihad? God’s will. Crusades? Positive that they were just. Millions dead by communism? Obviously it was necessary, and a few eggs being broken does not negate the good outcome of an omelet.

Internally, at some point in their lives, humans know right from wrong. But that can absolutely be undone, and frequently is. Unfortunately, appealing to God is often a mechanism used to do so. I am sure the Westboro Baptist Church feels God fully approves of celebrating deaths at funerals, causing pain and suffering to who knows how many. I would bet a lot of money that communist revolutionaries in Russia felt they were behaving morally in killing the rich as well. We can numb or kill our sensitivity to morality, and must guard against this. Unfortunately, I do not believe appeals to God’s will offer any protection against that, as it is almost impossible to objectively interpret the original writing and intent.

Our choices of how to act are influenced by this internal sense of right and wrong, and upon being acted out, become external, and live in the external realm of human interaction. My actions are outward signals of my motivations, values and beliefs, observable by others. The internal thoughts and ideas become external actions once manifested into reality by a moral agent who acts. By nature, that is external. All human action qualifies, and thus falls into the realm of an external morality.

It is also external in that we can be rewarded and punished by other individuals, or society as a whole, in response to our choices and actions. Man is not an island, nor do we live in a vacuum. We have, as a species, either been granted or evolved a complex value system with right and wrong behaviors inherently causing positive or negative responses. We still choose poorly, and society and our fellow humans use external pressures to increase the likelihood of better behavior in the future. This is either by increasing the cost of immoral behavior, or increasing the reward for moral behavior. I see nothing internal about this, once we leave the internal thoughts and ideas and dive into the realm of action. It is external to the individual, not the human species.

After that lengthy bit, alas, I must return to my confession. If we are discussing morality as defined in 1828, I have very little response. If morality is required, by the definition we choose, to include the term “obedience to divine will,” and “external” must mean God, then obviously I have no response. It does beg the question how we hope to motivate people who do not believe in God to do anything decent at all, however. If all behavior is immoral unless done because God said so, then wherein is the reason a person should choose to act well? If I will be punished equally for sex within a non-religious marriage, fornication, adultery and sexual assault, as they are all immoral, why would I choose to be married?

Is this your problem to deal with? Not exactly, except that I doubt many people want to live in a society in which the reasoning that all behavior is immoral unless done because we accept it as God’s will is taken to its logical conclusion. Lest anyone claim I am being unfair in this restatement of your assertion, I quote:

“The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.”
-Websters 1828 Dictionary, as quoted by Von

That definition pretty much precludes any ability of one to act morally unless intentionally done to be in accordance with divine will. I cannot stop someone from arguing this, however I would discourage it. The most likely outcome, it seems, will not be more believers in God, but something closer to a nihilistic acceptance of the futility of making an effort to behave well and honorably.

I would prefer not raise my children in that world. Instead, I will teach them to strive to behave well, with mercy and a sense of justice, towards others. If I do my job well, I hope I will spend decades enjoying a wonderful relationship with them.

I will use this to segue into the most inflammatory of my claims, which is what they owe me in response. I am going to flip around your response slightly, to apply to them. They did not exist, and now they do. I am sustaining them, with food, shelter and all other things needed to survive. They will have joy and happiness in their life, because of the choice my wife and I made, to create them.

They will also suffer immense pain, physically, mentally and emotionally. They will lose loved ones, have their hearts broken, probably break some bones (they are my kids, and I have broken enough for ten lifetimes), and potentially suffer greatly before dying.

My wife and I made this choice for them, without consulting them prior. We did not do a secret ballot asking who would like this chance and who would not. We decided to bring them into a world of great joy and beauty, but also of immense evil and agony.

They may thank me, but perhaps they will not. They do not owe me loyalty through their entire existence, unless it is earned. If they reach twenty-five, and due to terrible life choices, I am an abusive addict, do they owe it to me to continue to take my verbal or physical abuse? Obviously not, in such a blatant case. But what if I have fostered a codependent relationship, and am impeding their ability to fully mature and grow? Do they owe me something then? My having impregnated my wife does not permanently lock my children into a lifetime of servitude or potentially toxic relationships.

It strikes me as simplistic to say that children owe their parents something. It assumes that the parents tried, are continuing to try, have done nothing so devastatingly wrong that permanent emotional scars exist, and that they can accept and respect boundaries set by their adult children. This is great when true, but not always the case. If family is doing more harm than good, then, like a poison, you need to remove the source and let it heal.

I am fortunate that my parents are wonderful, and that we have a great relationship. I would argue that a large chunk of their joy comes from watching their children thrive in life, and that is a joy I hope to experience myself as my own children age, and hopefully become parents themselves. I assume, by projecting my own experience out, that any Creator would also feel joy at watching their creations thrive, assuming they feel emotion and joy.

Whether obedience is owed or not strikes me as the wrong question. For those who believe in God as laid out in their book of scripture, they already believe in obedience to God’s will. To those who do not believe, they will be unpersuaded. They may, however, be persuaded by the argument that we should treat others morally, ethically, and well. The question to ask, as far as I can tell, is whether a Creator would want people to behave morally towards each other, regardless of the motive behind it.

As a Father, I want my children to behave well, whether it is for a good reason or not. Practice makes perfect, and while they may only eat their dinner to get a bedtime story, eventually, after enough practice, they will politely eat food presented before them. A five year old may only refrain from hitting their sibling out of fear of retribution, but eventually they will have impulse control. The reason does not precede the action; the action foments understanding.

Only by disciplined practice of moral behavior can humans truly begin to comprehend the reason behind it, without suffering. The alternative is sin, and its consequences. I say sin, but how can that be if morals need not be dictated on high? Sin, the word, has its origins in an archery term. Most Christians are aware that to sin is to miss the mark. What is the mark? I would argue the Golden Rule, yet again. If I treat someone in a way I would not want to be treated, I have missed the mark, and there will be suffering. Or I can strive daily, fall short and not hit the mark, but continue working to overcome and improve. Day by day, action by action, I can improve, until certain behaviors are so unlikely as to be impossible. Sin, or morality. Either way you learn, but one is a far easier lesson.

Eventually, this may lead people closer to a belief in God. Even if it does not, it will build a better life for the person acting morally, and all those around them. If the goal is to create a better society, better humans, and a better future, we can argue that the right behavior for the wrong reasons makes wrong behavior. Or, we can argue that acting correctly is inherently good and moral, and let people go from there. I advocate for the latter.

“If nothing is written, if nothing is objective, if nothing is external, then nothing is a sin. It is all just a preference.” If all morality consists of is an external rule, arbitrarily imposed by a book with no means of verifying the original context, then pineapple on pizza may be a sin. If instead, morality is an objective reality, understood by all humanity, and externally verified and enforced by all those around us, then we can recognize some things are preferences, and some are wrong. Pineapple on a pizza is a preference, albeit a disgusting one. Shooting someone for putting pineapple on a pizza is immoral, and a punishment must follow. Are there situations where morality becomes blurry and gray? Yes, absolutely! But saying God’s will is the way to determine it leads to a lot of fuzziness itself. Which God, by whose interpretation, and through which means of knowing?

Why not read these wise books, and use the vast experience of humanity, to land somewhere tenable, instead of discouraging motivation in a large percentage of the population?

Love,
Someone really interested to see where this goes!

Pizza, Sushi, and the Definition of Morality