![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hawkwing_lbThe other day I listened to someone claim that one can't have morality unless one also has a God. That is, they claimed that without God, morality cannot exist.
I found that viewpoint interesting, and more than slightly disturbing.
It's something our theology class has touched on in passing: Kant argues for the existence of God as a postulate of a universal morality, without first explaining how he comes to accept the existence of a universal morality. But Kant is more of a natural theologian: his arguments in this matter concern themselves with attempting to provide evidence for the existence of a higher being. He extrapolates from morality to God: this other person takes things the other way around.
He's a Christian, of the sort that believes in the rationale of 'divine inspiration' for the texts of the Bible, and he holds that God gave out moral law in the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, but also the Deuteronomistic laws* and the teachings of Jesus. Atheists and agnostics such as the likes of me must be inherently immoral beings, being godless heathens.
But what is morality?
I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but from where I stand, morality is the code of behaviour within a society that governs interpersonal interactions.** It needs no divine originator: most of the principles of the Ten Commandments are sensible and self-serving, from a social point of view. You don't want to be murdered, stolen from, neglected by one's children, slandered, or cheated on. Neither do you want to have other people jealous of you. It's a social contract: you accept that you can't do these things, and in return society will punish those who do or try to do these things to you.
(Many scholars of Near Eastern history argue that the dietary laws and other restrictions of the Mosaic or Deuteronomistic laws originated or were expanded upon during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE and the practices brought back to Judea from there: that, in essence, before the early 5th century BCE one cannot speak of 'Jews' as such. Take a look at Gen. 12 and compare it to Gen. 17, for suggestive evidence that the tradition altered at some point: Gen. 12, God says, basically, 'Come on and I'll make you prosper,' Gen. 17, on the other hand, God says the same thing in different words, except he adds, 'As long as you and your sons get circumcised.' (Also the two different accounts of the creation, and don't ask me to look the chapter numbers up.) (Also, you know the Pentateuch was written up way later than Deuteronomy and the rest of the books of the law, right?) Okay, long digression. Back to the point now.)
A system of morality is the widely accepted (and sometimes codified by law, though also sometimes not: see under shame, ostracism, social marginalisation) series of behaviours deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the consensus of a society. Diverse societies can have conflicting sets of moral behaviours (see sex, marital and sex, not marital for an easy set of examples. Also see divorce.) (This is, incidentally, one of the major flaws in Kant's argument. There is no universally accepted morality.) Morality doesn't require the stamp of divine approval: this godless heathen believes behave towards others as you would like them to behave towards you is a perfectly acceptable moral system.
...I'm writing about theology on Livejournal. Someone shoot me now.
~
*I believe he misunderstands Mosaic Law, though, or he'd avoid shellfish and pork, which he doesn't.
**Some people define it as concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, but society and culture influence one's perceptions of right and wrong: to a Roman of the Republican or Imperial periods, slavery was perfectly moral. So were wars of conquest. Very few persons in the developed world would find those things so today.
I found that viewpoint interesting, and more than slightly disturbing.
It's something our theology class has touched on in passing: Kant argues for the existence of God as a postulate of a universal morality, without first explaining how he comes to accept the existence of a universal morality. But Kant is more of a natural theologian: his arguments in this matter concern themselves with attempting to provide evidence for the existence of a higher being. He extrapolates from morality to God: this other person takes things the other way around.
He's a Christian, of the sort that believes in the rationale of 'divine inspiration' for the texts of the Bible, and he holds that God gave out moral law in the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, but also the Deuteronomistic laws* and the teachings of Jesus. Atheists and agnostics such as the likes of me must be inherently immoral beings, being godless heathens.
But what is morality?
I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but from where I stand, morality is the code of behaviour within a society that governs interpersonal interactions.** It needs no divine originator: most of the principles of the Ten Commandments are sensible and self-serving, from a social point of view. You don't want to be murdered, stolen from, neglected by one's children, slandered, or cheated on. Neither do you want to have other people jealous of you. It's a social contract: you accept that you can't do these things, and in return society will punish those who do or try to do these things to you.
(Many scholars of Near Eastern history argue that the dietary laws and other restrictions of the Mosaic or Deuteronomistic laws originated or were expanded upon during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE and the practices brought back to Judea from there: that, in essence, before the early 5th century BCE one cannot speak of 'Jews' as such. Take a look at Gen. 12 and compare it to Gen. 17, for suggestive evidence that the tradition altered at some point: Gen. 12, God says, basically, 'Come on and I'll make you prosper,' Gen. 17, on the other hand, God says the same thing in different words, except he adds, 'As long as you and your sons get circumcised.' (Also the two different accounts of the creation, and don't ask me to look the chapter numbers up.) (Also, you know the Pentateuch was written up way later than Deuteronomy and the rest of the books of the law, right?) Okay, long digression. Back to the point now.)
A system of morality is the widely accepted (and sometimes codified by law, though also sometimes not: see under shame, ostracism, social marginalisation) series of behaviours deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the consensus of a society. Diverse societies can have conflicting sets of moral behaviours (see sex, marital and sex, not marital for an easy set of examples. Also see divorce.) (This is, incidentally, one of the major flaws in Kant's argument. There is no universally accepted morality.) Morality doesn't require the stamp of divine approval: this godless heathen believes behave towards others as you would like them to behave towards you is a perfectly acceptable moral system.
...I'm writing about theology on Livejournal. Someone shoot me now.
~
*I believe he misunderstands Mosaic Law, though, or he'd avoid shellfish and pork, which he doesn't.
**Some people define it as concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, but society and culture influence one's perceptions of right and wrong: to a Roman of the Republican or Imperial periods, slavery was perfectly moral. So were wars of conquest. Very few persons in the developed world would find those things so today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 03:12 pm (UTC)