NationStates Jolt Archive

A while ago someone, I think Barringtonia, gave a link to this article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFDB1F3CF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63&scp=1&sq=moral+instinct&st=nyt) by Steven Pinker. The entire article is great, but one thing in particular struck me as interesting:
The exact number of themes [of morality] depends on whether you're a lumper or a splitter, but [Jonathan] Haidt counts five -- harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity -- and suggests that they are the primary colors of our moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but each one tugs on the moral intuitions of people in our own culture.
All five of these are pragmatic, at least for a band of hunter-gatherers. Harm is clearly bad for any organism, and fairness is important if you want more than one organism to survive. The other three are just as important, though, at least to prehistoric man: group loyalty and respect of authority help the pack be successful, and things such as incest or eating dirty food are unhealthy. Pinker also mentions, earlier in the article, how morals change: smoking, once seen as, at worst, a bad habit, is now considered by many to be morally wrong. Same with eating meat, or even eating animal products. Usury, on the other hand, has fallen from the Top Ten Sin List.
So my question is: do you think this analysis is true, and if so, do you think these moral themes (the last three in particular) still work in modern society?

Aaagggg....the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them

Real word or not reading that word is like finding bone grit in your burger. Bleh...I couldn't finish the article....

more often.....

Sorry.

The other three are just as important, though, at least to prehistoric man:
...respect of authority help the pack be successful

small problem. there is, if anything, a distinct lack of respect for authority in humans - particularly in our wild-type.

small problem. there is, if anything, a distinct lack of respect for authority in humans - particularly in our wild-type.

Hm, I don't know. Wild humans may not have enjoyed being "civilized," but there was an authority figure in their small groups. Probably some elder, relatively powerless compared to someone like the American president, but respected, all the same.

As for more recent times, respect for authority still exists: children are expected to not talk back to their parents, people are expected to not attack clergy, and students are excepted to respect teachers. Plenty of exceptions, of course, but as a whole, authority is still very much respected.

More undefined and subjective terms please.

Of the 5 themes mentioned, I don't consider autority to be relative to morality. Community either for that matter. I can only think back to the days of Nazism and Stalinism, where there was plenty of respect for authority.

I dare say, morality is absolute, not changing with the times. Not to offend athiests and agnostics out there, but I think the 10 Commandments do a pretty good job of providing a moral compass that transcends time and societies.

I think the 10 Commandments do a pretty good job of providing a moral compass that transcends time and societies.

no, you don't.

Hm, I don't know. Wild humans may not have enjoyed being "civilized," but there was an authority figure in their small groups. Probably some elder, relatively powerless compared to someone like the American president, but respected, all the same.

nah, there is far more likely to be active work done to undermine those would-be authority figures. egalitarianism is a strong component in such societies, and jealously guarded.

As for more recent times, respect for authority still exists: children are expected to not talk back to their parents, people are expected to not attack clergy, and students are excepted to respect teachers. Plenty of exceptions, of course, but as a whole, authority is still very much respected.

of course it exists. it just is counterbalanced by an even stronger anti-authoritarian streak that is actually more fundamental to moral thought and judgment. "i was just following orders" is never a reasonable moral justification, for example.

no, you don't.

is this ,you think what we tell to think times?

is this ,you think what we tell to think times?

no. but nobody who sits down and thinks it through actually thinks the ten commandments provide a good general purpose moral compass at all. and they almost certainly disagree with at least two aspects of them, and probably three.

no. but nobody who sits down and thinks it through actually thinks the ten commandments provide a good general purpose moral compass at all. and they almost certainly disagree with at least two aspects of them, and probably three.

if it did they would not get broken would they

Well rotten liberal individualism is certainly no basis for 'morality', in fact moral systems which put the emphasis of the self-exclusive individual are innately nihilistic and anti-social, 'morality' and 'ethics' are pragmatic concepts which came about so we as a group could communicate and coordinate better. Morality in the collective comes from a firm understanding of human interdependence, while liberalism gains 'legitimacy' from abstract and farcical ideological viewpoints.

As for more recent times, respect for authority still exists: children are expected to not talk back to their parents, people are expected to not attack clergy,

Aren't people expected to not attack ANYONE?

if it did they would not get broken would they
no, it is entirely possible to accept that something is what you ought do but then fail to do it. i mean that there are at least 2 things in the ten commandments that are morally incorrect.

no, it is entirely possible to accept that something is what you ought do but then fail to do it. i mean that there are at least 2 things in the ten commandments that are morally incorrect.

At least 2!?! The whole thing is a rotten piece of reactionary filth.

no. but nobody who sits down and thinks it through actually thinks the ten commandments provide a good general purpose moral compass at all. and they almost certainly disagree with at least two aspects of them, and probably three.

Which three are you thinking of?

Which three are you thinking of?

Probably among II, III, IV and X, according to the Protestant Decalogue.

Which three are you thinking of?

well, not necessarily individual commandments as wholes. but i doubt that our friend believes, for example, that it is morally right to punish a person's grandchildren for the wrongs of the grandparent. or that it is wrong for anyone or anything, anywhere to be working on saturday. those are the two i am almost certain of.

and then there are the fuzzier ones, that hinge more on emphasis or interpretation. like what exactly it means to not be allowed to make images of stuff, or to desire stuff you don't have. there are definitely some interpretations of both of those that have been held that would clearly be written off as stupid. come to think of it, the interpretation jesus offers of the adultery prohibition is pretty ludicrous too.

no. but nobody who sits down and thinks it through actually thinks the ten commandments provide a good general purpose moral compass at all. and they almost certainly disagree with at least two aspects of them, and probably three.

I think just the opposite is true. I think if one would sit down and think them through, they would realize the commandments are what guides the moral compass in our society. Granted, the first three deal with man's relationship with God, and do not pertain to a percentage of the population, but the others deal with one's relationship to another.

I think what we fear about them is the realization that what we are doing may be immoral.

I think just the opposite is true. I think if one would sit down and think them through, they would realize the commandments are what guides the moral compass in our society. Granted, the first three deal with man's relationship with God, and do not pertain to a percentage of the population, but the others deal with one's relationship to another.

I think what we fear about them is the realization that what we are doing may be immoral.

There are exactly 3 out of 10 that actually are what could be called universal guidelines. The ones about stealing, killing and lying.
And even those are not absolute but riddled with exceptions.

3 out of 10 would mean you fail the exam. 3 out of 10 does not mean that the ten commandments are universal, absolute, unquestionable moral guides.

The Socialist Moral Code

Their morality is a code of behavior based on the whims of society.Their purpose is to serve their neighbors welfare and please an authority next door rather than their on life or pleasure.They preach that the good is self – sacrifice for the incompetents of Earth.They are comparable to a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others.A = Non A.They withhold their contempt from men’s vices and withhold admiration for men’s virtues.They claim rewards they have not earned.They support their life by robbery and alms.They seek to derive happiness from the injury or favor of others rather than their own achievement.They give and take the undeserved.Seek benefits from human vices.They force men to drop their minds and to accept their will as substitute.They tell the competent minds Produce and feed us in exchange for not destroying your production.Man’s mind must be subordinated to the will of Society.

I think those 5 themes of morality are pretty close but personally I'd say harm, fairness, trust (loyalty is just a way to earn trust), conformity (sometimes even if it means surrendering fairness by yielding to authority) and purity.

3 out of 10 would mean you fail the exam. 3 out of 10 does not mean that the ten commandments are universal, absolute, unquestionable moral guides.
I agree but I think all of them are while not unquestionable, at least good ideas.

"1. Have no other gods." and "2. Don't make idols." is what made the Abrahamic religions special, it made them monotheistic rather than polytheistic like most other religions.
"3. Don't misuse God's name." is a nice idea, the world would be a better place if people wouldn't commit so many absolutely horrible sins in God's name.
"4. Rest every 7th day." sounds great, I mean imagine if there was no weekends, just work every single day.
"5. Honor your parents." most parents do their best and deserve some respect.
"6. Don't murder." doesn't need justification.
"7. Don't cheat on your partner." is good advice unless you want to risk ruining your relationship.
"8. Don't steal." doesn't need justification.
"9. Don't come with false accusations." was very important in the past where there was no fingerprints, dna or other evidence, just accusations vs denial, back then false accusations could get an innocent man executed.
"10. Don't envy what others have." even though the grass is greener on the other side it is still better to be happy over what you have than unhappy over what others have.

I think just the opposite is true. I think if one would sit down and think them through, they would realize the commandments are what guides the moral compass in our society.

no, they aren't. on top of the fact that you too will find portions of them morally objectionable or irrelevant, there are so many moral dilemmas which the commandments don't even begin to offer help addressing. that's because they are comandments, not abstract principles for decision-making. i mean, if you are looking for moral compasses, there's a much better one later on in the bible.

I think those 5 themes of morality are pretty close but personally I'd say harm, fairness, trust (loyalty is just a way to earn trust), conformity (sometimes even if it means surrendering fairness by yielding to authority) and purity.


I agree but I think all of them are while not unquestionable, at least good ideas.

"1. Have no other gods." and "2. Don't make idols." is what made the Abrahamic religions special, it made them monotheistic rather than polytheistic like most other religions.

How exactly is that a good thing?

I agree but I think all of them are while not unquestionable, at least good ideas.


A good idea is not the same as a moral guideline. For instance, heating iron in the presence of carbon and shaping it into a pointy thing was a good idea, but that doesn't mean that the invention of the sword was morally commendable. As I see it, commandments 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 are not moral guidelines -- at least, they aren't moral guidelines the way you articulated them.

The Socialist Moral Code

Their morality is a code of behavior based on the whims of society.Their purpose is to serve their neighbors welfare and please an authority next door rather than their on life or pleasure.They preach that the good is self – sacrifice for the incompetents of Earth.They are comparable to a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others.A = Non A.They withhold their contempt from men’s vices and withhold admiration for men’s virtues.They claim rewards they have not earned.They support their life by robbery and alms.They seek to derive happiness from the injury or favor of others rather than their own achievement.They give and take the undeserved.Seek benefits from human vices.They force men to drop their minds and to accept their will as substitute.They tell the competent minds Produce and feed us in exchange for not destroying your production.Man’s mind must be subordinated to the will of Society.

Have you ever even talked to socialists about their moral code? No, I expect not.

Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)

Read up on Humanism. Because chances are, socialists are also humanists of some form or another. But by all means, don't spout your ignorance.

Ok, let's see...


I agree but I think all of them are while not unquestionable, at least good ideas.

"1. Have no other gods." and "2. Don't make idols." is what made the Abrahamic religions special, it made them monotheistic rather than polytheistic like most other religions.

...is no universal moral value.
Considering how god behaves in the bible, I personally wouldn't call it a moral value at all to begin with.


"3. Don't misuse God's name." is a nice idea, the world would be a better place if people wouldn't commit so many absolutely horrible sins in God's name.

So, commiting those "sins" would be perfectly ok as long as they don't do it in god's name?
Again, no universal value. Not even really moral.


"4. Rest every 7th day." sounds great, I mean imagine if there was no weekends, just work every single day.

Your weekends are just one day, are they?
Every civilisation had regular holidays, that's no christian invention.
And to call a regulated work-leisure pattern a moral value? I dunno... bit far-fetched.


"5. Honor your parents." most parents do their best and deserve some respect.

Bullshit.
Many do, and if they do they deserve respect.
Many don't, and don't deserve any form of respect whatsoever.
In that way, parents are exactly like any other human being.
If that read "Respect people until they give you reason not to" it would be a universal moral value. As it is, it's an empty phrase.


"6. Don't murder." doesn't need justification.

... unless your community has declared war on another community, in which case, feel free to murder as many of the others as you like.
... unless god tells you to, in which case, enjoy the slaughter.
... unless you're being attacked.
... unless society decided to murder certain individuals for whatever reasons.

Moral value yes, universal or absolute no.


"7. Don't cheat on your partner." is good advice unless you want to risk ruining your relationship.

I'm a happy swinger, in a happy swinging relationship. "Cheating" is fun for both of us.


"8. Don't steal." doesn't need justification.

Again, this would in reality read "Don't steal unless..."
Starving people stealing food, would you say that's immoral?


"9. Don't come with false accusations." was very important in the past where there was no fingerprints, dna or other evidence, just accusations vs denial, back then false accusations could get an innocent man executed.

Again, yes it is a moral value. No, it's not absolute.


"10. Don't envy what others have." even though the grass is greener on the other side it is still better to be happy over what you have than unhappy over what others have.

That's no moral value to begin with, but some nice and friendly advice.

Thanks for trying, better luck next time.

...is no universal moral value.
Considering how god behaves in the bible, I personally wouldn't call it a moral value at all to begin with.

Give some examples of how you belive God behaves. Some verses would be nice.

... unless your community has declared war on another community, in which case, feel free to murder as many of the others as you like.
... unless god tells you to, in which case, enjoy the slaughter.
... unless you're being attacked.
... unless society decided to murder certain individuals for whatever reasons.
There is a difference between "Murder" and "Kill".
Again, this would in reality read "Don't steal unless..."
Starving people stealing food, would you say that's immoral?

Yes. Yes I would. Do you think it's immoral? If you say no, than are you for excusing people in certain circumstances? What if they stole from somone else who was starving?

A while ago someone, I think Barringtonia, gave a link to this article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFDB1F3CF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63&scp=1&sq=moral+instinct&st=nyt) by Steven Pinker. The entire article is great, but one thing in particular struck me as interesting:

All five of these are pragmatic, at least for a band of hunter-gatherers. Harm is clearly bad for any organism, and fairness is important if you want more than one organism to survive. The other three are just as important, though, at least to prehistoric man: group loyalty and respect of authority help the pack be successful, and things such as incest or eating dirty food are unhealthy. Pinker also mentions, earlier in the article, how morals change: smoking, once seen as, at worst, a bad habit, is now considered by many to be morally wrong. Same with eating meat, or even eating animal products. Usury, on the other hand, has fallen from the Top Ten Sin List.
So my question is: do you think this analysis is true, and if so, do you think these moral themes (the last three in particular) still work in modern society?

Well, to work backwards, community, authority, and purity only have value in liberal society if you are speaking anthropologically (as in, "the Soviet Union had a particular sense of community of kind x"), or if that sense of community, authority, and purity ties back in to larger moral considerations such as equality, liberty, and justice. It's no surprise that the French Revolution prized Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, but it's also helpful to note that the decidedly illiberal efforts of Robespierre focused a lot more on Fraternity than the other values.

That being said, there's a wierd communitarian assumption running through your post: we find these things valuable and moral because our genetic ancestors found them practical. This is flawed or at least incomplete for two reasons. First, the assumption that because our ancestors behaved in a certain way, their children would be genetically predisposed to behave similarly is roughly analogous to the assumption that giraffes evolved long necks because their genetic inheritors developed the behavioral taste for high-reaching tree branches and constantly had to stretch their necks to get them. In other words, it teeters on the very edge of blatant Lamarckianism, which is just flat out bogus evolutionary theory. Second and perhaps more pertinant to the discussion is that your analysis would seem to imply that for some hypothetical "Last Man", morality is a moot concept. Absent a community, morality has no purpose and no meaning, when in fact our intuition is that a man that acts morally in a communal setting and still does the same when alone is still acting morally.

Give some examples of how you belive God behaves. Some verses would be nice.

Sorry, I can't be arsed to find the exact quotes, but I'm sure you'll find them easily :\

Joshua being ordered to kill every man, woman, child and animal in conquered Jericho
God killing all of Egypt's firstborns
God flooding the entire world and killing everything except for Noah and his family and menagerie

Just a few I could think of on the top of my head. I'll go digging for more when I've got the time.


There is a difference between "Murder" and "Kill".

Yup. Current legislation in whatever geography you would happen to find yourself.
As I said, nowhere near absolute nore universal.


Yes. Yes I would. Do you think it's immoral? If you say no, than are you for excusing people in certain circumstances? What if they stole from somone else who was starving?

I wouldn't think it's immoral to take food from people who have enough or even too much, if you yourself are starving.
Slightly different situation if you're stealing from someone else who is starving, I would find that understandable, but immoral.

I wouldn't think it's immoral to take food from people who have enough or even too much, if you yourself are starving.
Slightly different situation if you're stealing from someone else who is starving, I would find that understandable, but immoral.
People could live as theives. Whenever they get hungry just break open a window and grab a loaf of bread, never mind that it dosen't belong to you, you're starving and the world should bend over backwards because you don't want to get a job.:rolleyes:
Yup. Current legislation in whatever geography you would happen to find yourself.
As I said, nowhere near absolute nore universal.

What do you mean by legislation?
I think killing is in self-defence or in times of war killing combatants. Murdering is killing non-combatants in time of war and killing somone for money, a feud, etc,.
God killing all of Egypt's firstborns

True, but if you'll read it, God gave the Pharoah a chance, and the killing of the firstborn was a last resort. It was the oppressed Isrealites, or the Egyptians. Which would you choose? The ones who support you and are forced into being slaves, or the ones who belive in little metal figurines and are cruely oppresing the enslaved?
God flooding the entire world and killing everything except for Noah and his family and menagerie

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Only evil continally. Would you leave an entire world of Evil people to continually wrong each other, after you've given them chance after chance?
Joshua being ordered to kill every man, woman, child and animal in conquered Jericho

I'll admit, I have no answer to that, I'll tell you when I do.

That being said, there's a wierd communitarian assumption running through your post: we find these things valuable and moral because our genetic ancestors found them practical. This is flawed or at least incomplete for two reasons. First, the assumption that because our ancestors behaved in a certain way, their children would be genetically predisposed to behave similarly is roughly analogous to the assumption that giraffes evolved long necks because their genetic inheritors developed the behavioral taste for high-reaching tree branches and constantly had to stretch their necks to get them. In other words, it teeters on the very edge of blatant Lamarckianism, which is just flat out bogus evolutionary theory.
What makes this Lamarckian, and not just real evolution? Couldn't our ancestors have turned up like this because organisms with these traits were more likely to reproduce? To stay with the giraffe analogy: giraffes don't have long necks because generations kept stretching their necks, they have long necks because the long neck gene(s) were beneficial to those that had them. Similarly, hominids with the "community" gene did better than those without.

Second and perhaps more pertinant to the discussion is that your analysis would seem to imply that for some hypothetical "Last Man", morality is a moot concept. Absent a community, morality has no purpose and no meaning, when in fact our intuition is that a man that acts morally in a communal setting and still does the same when alone is still acting morally.
Wouldn't this mean that morality is predetermined? In other words, what we find moral is almost genetic, which is what the article says.

That being said, there's a wierd communitarian assumption running through your post: we find these things valuable and moral because our genetic ancestors found them practical. This is flawed or at least incomplete for two reasons. First, the assumption that because our ancestors behaved in a certain way, their children would be genetically predisposed to behave similarly is roughly analogous to the assumption that giraffes evolved long necks because their genetic inheritors developed the behavioral taste for high-reaching tree branches and constantly had to stretch their necks to get them. In other words, it teeters on the very edge of blatant Lamarckianism, which is just flat out bogus evolutionary theory. Second and perhaps more pertinant to the discussion is that your analysis would seem to imply that for some hypothetical "Last Man", morality is a moot concept. Absent a community, morality has no purpose and no meaning, when in fact our intuition is that a man that acts morally in a communal setting and still does the same when alone is still acting morally.

I think he just worded that unfortunately. Fact is that a social group has evolutionary advantages compared to individuals on their own. Fact is also that for a group to function, certain behaviour from the members towards one another is necessary.
So behavioural patterns evolved that helped and facilitated life within the group, whereas patterns that were strongly anti-social were not favoured (might even have led to total exclusion from the group). Such "bad" behaviour may not have died out, sociopathy might be a remnant.
However, Steven Pinker pointed out in "The Blank Slate", an overall too moral society thrives at the cost of the individual, which in turn is not an evolutionary advantage. In essence, humans have two strategies they can employ more or less at will : Selfishness and altruism.
It's what we commonly refer to as "free will". We have inate moral structures, but we also have inate selfishness.

And how would you act moral when there is nobody around and you're on your own? Morals guide our behaviour towards others, without anybody around they're more or less pointless.

People could live as theives. Whenever they get hungry just break open a window and grab a loaf of bread, never mind that it dosen't belong to you, you're starving and the world should bend over backwards because you don't want to get a job.:rolleyes:

Let me guess... you've never gone without food for more than a day or two in your life, have you?
I have, and nobody with any option to avoid starvation will rather starve. Well, mentally disturbed masochists, maybe.

Or are you seriously assuming that people are stupid enough not to realise that stolen food will never last for long? That they will starve again tomorrow? That if they had a job or any form of income they wouldn't have to?

Or are you seriously assuming that people are stupid enough not to realise that stolen food will never last for long?
There are stupider ideas that exist, and are still in practice. And, according to your circumstances, it would last. They could break into house after house, or even the same house, and the owners could do nothing about it.

What makes this Lamarckian, and not just real evolution? Couldn't our ancestors have turned up like this because organisms with these traits were more likely to reproduce? To stay with the giraffe analogy: giraffes don't have long necks because generations kept stretching their necks, they have long necks because the long neck gene(s) were beneficial to those that had them. Similarly, hominids with the "community" gene did better than those without.

That, as Cabra West said, is much more clearly stated and much less Lamarckian. I implied that it was less to the point than the second point in large part because once I pointed it out to you, I suspected you wouldn't say that's what you meant. But it's important to be clear.

That being said, I find this kind of evolutionary supposition to be nothing more than a just-so story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story). I don't like it because it fails the very first principle of Popper's criterion of scientific analysis: falsification. I can't really think of a practical way to falsify the genetic origin of communal organization given only evidence about present organization, so what you're really talking about is unscientific idle speculation. While idle speculation is fine, it shouldn't be mixed with scientific evolutionary theory.


Wouldn't this mean that morality is predetermined? In other words, what we find moral is almost genetic, which is what the article says.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but intuitions are probably not genetically coded. I can intuit from experience that items out of a set x leaves a number of items less than the original x, but I doubt that intuition comes as a consequence of some math gene. Rather, it comes from a general faculty of reason which likely does have some genetic base, but forms opinions on the basis of observation and experience.

You'll note that this is strikingly similar to the kind of analysis offered by classical liberal thinkers, and that was really what I was trying to get at. Classical liberal thinkers often make very strong cases for evaluating morality at an individual level as a consequence of reason. And its easy to see from their argumentation that while traits such as justice or sympathy only express themselves in social situations, you can be a just or sympathetic kind of man even if you are alone. I don't like the idea of justice or sympathy being some kind of genetic mutations developed to keep me in line with society, beccause it cuts against the grain of what I intuit (that moral inclinations are moral irrespective of whether you are social or alone), and it also reverses the proper order of how things ought to work: in that formulation, you're just because you are genetically predisposed to be social, whereas the proper ordering would be that you are social becuase you have reasonably determined that you can function justly in this society.

And how would you act moral when there is nobody around and you're on your own? Morals guide our behaviour towards others, without anybody around they're more or less pointless.

Well, I thought it was truistic that morality is doing what is right when nobody is looking. Be that as it may, though, I don't see how moral behaviors are useless when no one else is around. Temperance is a moral behavior that controls our consumption of goods in keeping with what we need; it seems to be of benefit and survival value whether we are in a social setting or alone.

People could live as theives. Whenever they get hungry just break open a window and grab a loaf of bread, never mind that it dosen't belong to you, you're starving and the world should bend over backwards because you don't want to get a job.:rolleyes:


*tries in vain to find a stupid asshole of the day award to hand out*

... unless your community has declared war on another community, in which case, feel free to murder as many of the others as you like.
... unless god tells you to, in which case, enjoy the slaughter.
... unless you're being attacked.
... unless society decided to murder certain individuals for whatever reasons.


That one isn't murder. At least not if you could reasonably fear for life.

Give some examples of how you belive God behaves. Some verses would be nice.

You are aware of that time He allegedly killed everyone except one family and some animals, right? Or those two cities (Sodom and Gamora) that He firebombed? How about the results of His little bar bet with Satan in regards to Job? The one that included killing off Jobs family and servants just to test Job's loyalty? Have you ever read the fucking book?

True, but if you'll read it, God gave the Pharoah a chance, and the killing of the firstborn was a last resort. It was the oppressed Isrealites, or the Egyptians. Which would you choose? The ones who support you and are forced into being slaves, or the ones who belive in little metal figurines and are cruely oppresing the enslaved?

So, an all powerful being instead of killing the Pharoah or teleporting the Jews out of Egypt chose instead to kill the first born, some of whom were no doubt innocent children who had done nothing to the Israelites?


Only evil continally. Would you leave an entire world of Evil people to continually wrong each other, after you've given them chance after chance?

And again we see this deity choosing genocide, and including innocent children.

That one isn't murder. At least not if you could reasonably fear for life.

Because we don't define it as murder.
Anti-abortionists tend to call abortions murder, which again, legally, it's not.
Murder, as I said, is a matter of definition. And therefore saying "don't murder anyone" while not specifying what exaclty constitutes murder, is a rather pointless commandment.

And how would you act moral when there is nobody around and you're on your own? Morals guide our behaviour towards others, without anybody around they're more or less pointless.

You don't think that there's a moral way to act towards the earth, flora, and fauna?

You don't think that there's a moral way to act towards the earth, flora, and fauna?

Ah, got me there ;)

Although it has to be said that it's a relatively recent development to extend the spectrum of human morality to include the above.

The history of human morality is fascinating that way, it has been expanding from the start. It started out most likely just including one's own family, with members of other families not being regarded as worthy of moral treatment. It extended to include whole tribes and clans, then "races", later nations, and most recently all of humanity. And now it's moving on to include non-human life forms.

Ah, got me there ;)

Although it has to be said that it's a relatively recent development to extend the spectrum of human morality to include the above.

Why do say that? Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans, from what I understand, had views on moral behavior towards the land long before the advent of modern environmentalist movements.

The history of human morality is fascinating that way, it has been expanding from the start. It started out most likely just including one's own family, with members of other families not being regarded as worthy of moral treatment. It extended to include whole tribes and clans, then "races", later nations, and most recently all of humanity. And now it's moving on to include non-human life forms.

I'll certainly agree that our conceptions of morality have a distinctly developmental quality.

Give some examples of how you belive God behaves. Some verses would be nice.


In Exodus 4: 21 God: "But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go."

So basically he interfered with free will so that the first borns could die and the innocent could suffer.

Also: "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare
and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women..."
..........Ezekiel 9:5

"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I
have commanded you."
..........Jeremiah 50:21

"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her
God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed
in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
..........Hosea 13:16

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his
sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time
and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left
none remaining..."
..........Deuteronomy 2:33

Why do say that? Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans, from what I understand, had views on moral behavior towards the land long before the advent of modern environmentalist movements.

Some of them, not all.
For many Native American tribes, living in a comparatively delicate environment that could easily turn against them if exploited in any way, treating the earth with respect was a matter of survival. Pretty much what we now feel towards the whole planet, as we slowly come to realise that we cannot just do and take whatever we like without consequences.
There is some very clear archeological evidence of Native American tribes who didn't realise the consequences of their actions to the environment that supported them, and in turn saw their civilisation wiped out by draughts or inundations or because the animals they lived off had been hunted close to extinction and the remaining ones could not support the human population any more.
The Maya are suspected to have ended like that, and it's pretty much accepted fact that such behaviour was also the reason for the virtual disappearance of humans from several Polynesian islands, including Easter Island.

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail Or Succeed (http://books.google.ie/books?id=-gyrAAAACAAJ&dq=Jared+Diamond&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=jared+diamond&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=author-navigational) by Jared Diamond is a very good read on this subject.

Some of them, not all.
For many Native American tribes, living in a comparatively delicate environment that could easily turn against them if exploited in any way, treating the earth with respect was a matter of survival. Pretty much what we now feel towards the whole planet, as we slowly come to realise that we cannot just do and take whatever we like without consequences.
There is some very clear archeological evidence of Native American tribes who didn't realise the consequences of their actions to the environment that supported them, and in turn saw their civilisation wiped out by draughts or inundations or because the animals they lived off had been hunted close to extinction and the remaining ones could not support the human population any more.
The Maya are suspected to have ended like that, and it's pretty much accepted fact that such behaviour was also the reason for the virtual disappearance of humans from several Polynesian islands, including Easter Island.

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail Or Succeed (http://books.google.ie/books?id=-gyrAAAACAAJ&dq=Jared+Diamond&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=jared+diamond&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=author-navigational) by Jared Diamond is a very good read on this subject.

Quite. So what did you mean by relatively recent?

People could live as theives. Whenever they get hungry just break open a window and grab a loaf of bread, never mind that it dosen't belong to you, you're starving and the world should bend over backwards because you don't want to get a job.:rolleyes:


Because every person who is starving has the option to get a job.:rolleyes:

Because every person who is starving has the option to get a job.:rolleyes:

Yeah. We all know about all the great jobs they have in countries where starvation and malnutrition is a major problem. Those emaciated kids totally just need to get those jobs that don't exist and make the money that has never been invested in their economy by foreign countries that have stolen most of their natural resources and left the native economy to die.

Quite. So what did you mean by relatively recent?

Well, ok, first of all I have to admit to cultural egocentrism. I don't really know enough about, say, Japanese morality or Namibian morality to make any sort of statements. I was mostly refering to European and North American moraltiy as it is now.

Well, ok, first of all I have to admit to cultural egocentrism. I don't really know enough about, say, Japanese morality or Namibian morality to make any sort of statements. I was mostly refering to European and North American moraltiy as it is now.

Fair enough.