OJ, this is a case where I totally agree with you. This is one of the reasons I do not call myself a Libertarian, although I am generally in favor of individual freedom. In the extreme case of life & death, society has a duty to save us when we seek to destroy ourselves.

This impulse can be taken too far as well, which is why I am not a Communitarian. The worhip of community can become an idolatry, disconnected from the needs and desires of the individuals that make up that community.

It seems the hallmark of any "-ism" is a predilection for hard and fast rules at the expense of judgement.

What makes communitarians particularly frustrating is that they'd say that cannibalism is anti-community but would then refuse to take any steps to stop it.

...contrary to the belief of libertarians and Leftists....

I beg your pardon, but it seems to me that Leftists are very concerned about others (to the point of interfering with individual liberties). I don't see how this case supports an anti-Left perspective. Why do you people always go straight to cannibalism and bestiality in order to deride liberals? What filthy minds you have.

To the contrary, Leftism is about what the state can do for me, which is why liberties of others are unimportant.

The entire article is well worth reading, because it makes a good case that very few actions have consequences restricted solely to the individuals involved.

Robert:

"It seems the hallmark of any "-ism" is a predilection for hard and fast rules at the expense of judgement."

But isn't the absence of hard and fast rules (or a sense of them) the problem in this case? I assume you would agree that visceral disgust is not much of a guiding principle, so what is? You didn't follow Dalrymple's instructions.

SixFoot-

I swear I have never had to resort to associating cannibalism and/or bestiality with Leftists to deride them. By and large, one can limit oneself to myriad, more tasteful subjects.

Peter, I am referring to the Libertarian's hard and fast rule to permit anything that an individual desires. Is the sacredness of human life a good enough first principle? But there are times when other principles will trump human life, such as the need to depose a dictator like Saddam Hussein. Not that human life was not at the root of that decision, but that life needed to be put at risk to secure a greater flowering of human life and liberty.

There is no philosophical system that will produce the right answer in all circumstances. We can't run society by an algorithm. Human judgement will always be an essential, if flawed, element.

Robert

Yes, the sacredness of human life is an excellent first principle. And I am happy, young man, to see your new-found adherence to the sacred. :-)

Doubtless the counsel for the defense will argue that as the victim had been eaten, the matter is a purely internal affair.

Peter,
It is not a new-found adherence. And I am not young ;-) You may think that sacredness is an odd word coming from an athiest, but you shouldn't. The sacred is what we hold most dear. For someone who sees no prospect for an afterlife, this life is all the more special. It is all we have.

That is a remarkable exchange.

Since it seems to me that words such as "holy" or "sacred" together with "respect" are necessary, at least in some form and on some level, for any society to sustain itself. That is, it is essential to inculcate such concepts in the polity, particularly the young (I could be mistaken about this, of course.)

For if the sense of the holy, of the sacred, is not "learned" or practiced, whence comes the respect, unless it be merely for a stronger power (i.e., fear), the consequences of which are evident throughout history. Or in other words, perhaps, without respect, "holy" and "sacred" may lead to potential abuse.

Which leads me to wonder, if people who do not consider themselves "believers" use such words (e.g., "holy" and "sacred"), might this not be acceptable to those who insist that belief in a divine is essential? (And I am coming at this fresh from a lecture on Emanuel Levinas, who, according to the lecturer, who was his student, held that the agnostic, actively wrestling with the idea of faith and belief in God, may well approach a higher degree of faith, or perhaps relation to the divine---due to the curiosity, the doubt, the duelling with self---than others for whom God is a given, i.e., if I understood this point correctly, which is not necessarily a given.) Anyway....

Robert/Barry:

Yes, sure, many secularists can and do live highly moral lives with a sense of the scared, particularly if they don't think about it too hard. And agnostics can be very spiritual, particularly if they do. The problem is they don't have much to say to their colleagues whose inner lights tell them something different except "Let's vote.", thus reducing moral issues to civil regulation, little different from tax rates.

This seems to satisfy many on this site, who believe it is adequate for a resilient, cohesive society. I can't see it. Robert has written before of his support for traditional norms and responsibilities on the issue of raising children, dating, sex, etc., but what happens when they meet others of differing views who also see themselves as highly moral reverers of life?

Harry and Jeff like to challenge religion on the basis of the incompatibility of competing absolute truths. But on this and derivative issues, the real incompatibility is with materialists. I can't imagine serious Christians, Jews and Muslims arguing for long about the acceptability of cannibalism, infanticide or partial birth abortion, still less casual divorce and teen sex. It is the materialist viewpoint that gives respectability to these issues, which are often promoted by decent, tolerant, well-meaning folks completely convinced they are highly moral and hold life sacred.

Peter:

Good points. But how does one contest competing sacrednesses? How do you deal with spiritual people whose inner lights are different from yours?

Harry and I argue that these differences are settled materially. Fundamentally, all moral systems are materially based, or they would never change over time.

We just don't happen to mind admitting it. ;)

"Fundamentally, all moral systems are materially based, or they would never change over time."

Well, yes, perhaps, but ("all"?).

But what if they are, in fact, essentially spiritually-based, but with a nod---a necessary nod---towards the material world (materialism?), which materialism believers, at least of the Jewish "persuasion," would claim cannot be divorced from the spiritual, created as it was/is (by God) for people to enjoy---in this world---though within certain prescribed limits.

(I.e., divorcing the material from the spiritual is, from a Jewish point of view---assuming I understand it correctly, more or less---a very problematic position to take, and is one of the "difficulties" when referring to "Judeo-Christianity" as a combined/single system, or worldview.)

P.S. In the Hebrew language, the word for holy ("kahdosh"), etymogically, implies circumscription or limits.

Etymologically, that is.

(Entomologicall?)

Jeff:

You think the Ten Commandments have changed over time? We've been here before. You have this charming view that religion is a how-to manual that answers all of life's practical challenges with blinding, permanent and universal clarity. It isn't.

Tell me, what practical problems do you see modern American Christians having in "dealing" with their Jewish and Muslim counterparts? We have a mess of problems with the materialists on their anti-religious crusade, who are making a lot of compulsory demands that try the faithful. I am unaware of any such pressures from other faiths. I think it may be because our inner lights aren't inner.

Barry:

Whew! For a moment I thought you said circumcision!

--Fundamentally, all moral systems are materially based--

Christianity posits the same. Moral systems are materially based because humans, the carriers, are part material.

However, it goes further and posits that MORALITY itself (not "moral systems") is eternal.

Therefore, this great argument is a complete missing of the point. No Christian will argue with you guys that our moral systems change. Every historical Christian confession basically admits to this. We'll simply argue that the source of morality does not.

This is reflected in the view that Christians do not so much repent of their individual sins; we repent of our utter depravity, our complete sinful nature. That's the bogeyman we fight, not just some recurring weakness like being too lazy or stealing paperclips from the office.

It's a proximate/ultimate thing. Start with God and work down, you see both. Start with humans and admit nothing else, you see half the equation.

Orrin's first sentence is a precise statement of how darwinians understand morality.

I myself have no problem with a morality that is purely instrumental, because for me results count.

I'd rather my neighbor be moral than not, but how much he struggles to behave is of no significance.

The statement that Christians and Muslims have no serious conflict astounds me. Both as a factual assertion and -- for this blog, anyway -- it's declaration of moral equivalence.

Peter:

No, the Ten Commandments haven't changed over time. But our notion of them sure has.

Graven images, for example.

Women exist as independent life forms now, for another.

I have never asserted that morality exists as some algorythym that involves plugging in the problem at one end, and the invariably correct answer chugs out the other.

Rather, the practical application of so-called objective morality results in completely contradictory conclusions on any but the most trivial ethical and moral problems. That means people end up resorting to habit, or material means, to determine what is "right."

Modern American Christians, by and large, don't have any significant problems with Jews. But why did Christians demonize Jews for so long?

The competing claims of Christianity and Islam are often mutually exclusive and universal. How can there not be a conflict?

Judd:

How is it helpful that the source of objective morality doesn't change, if "G-d says [fill in the blank]" changes so often?

Jeff:

Because the objective will always draw those who read it subjectively back to first principles, as witness the backlash against anti-Semitism and abortion. We're humans and so stray into error, but we know when we're wrong and our efforts to justify our departures from morality are futile.

Jeff:

"Women exist as independent life forms now, for another."

C'mon, let's at least try and pretend to be serious.

Ah, but Monsieur Anonymous, for so long women couldn't own property; Agree to, or disagree with, their marriage to another; Sign contracts; And certainly not vote.

So, what exactly IS your definition of independence ?

Anonymous:

Do women exist as independent life forms in the 10 Commandments?

Jeff:

Morality does not require that women be treated as equals, politics does.

Sorry, that was me. We are travelling well-trodden ground here, but let's try again. If you are talking about the West, married women were under a lot of legal disabilities, but unmarried women were not, including widows. They were always legally "whole", which kind of shoots your gender bias theory down. It was the legal unity of the family, not misogyny, that was beind it all.

As for arranged marriage, it was arranged on both sides. As for consent, check out the works of Antonina Fraser, who is too good an historian to allow her feminist leanings to hide the many, many stories of spirited refusals and frustrated parents in the 1600's. I have never read about reluctant grooms having it any easier than reluctant brides. Legal consent was always required of both parties by the churches. It was the social and economic circumstances that made refusal so hard. If they wanted to enter the Church, they did, which was a much more prestigious career choice than today. They got little education, but neither did non-aristocratic or wealthy men.

Although married women couldn't sign contracts without their husbands until 1884 (Britain), equity started providing all kinds of neat trust tricks for wealthy families to keep husbands' greasy paws off the wealth in the 1500's and provide seperate wealth for women. Don't forget that land was not alienable at will, so it is a distorion to think hubby could parcel off the estate as he wished. Contracts, as we know them, are fairly modern. It was a stratified society and economic freedom didn't exist. (Men who broke their lengthy apprenticeships signed by their parents were in big trouble.)

As for the vote, women got it in Britain thirty-five years after men and less in some other European countries. North America had larger gaps, but it was not much more than twenty years between the time women started demanding it. The truth is that many women were just as supportive of a family rights based society (as opposed to individual rights) as were men until the late 19th and even 20th century. Susan B. Anthony and Germaine Greer don't have a lot in common.

Certainly not equal as we would consider, but not "independent life forms"? Give me a break. Have you ever been to a Shakespeare play? How come there were so many Queens?

And PULEEZE don't give me any gumph about women being chattels or I will treat you to a boring lecture on the law of chattels. They never were close to being chattels and all the denial in the world won't change that.

As for the Commandments, Jeff, I don't know what you are talking about. You are supposed to honour both mother and father and nobody is to commit adultery. What else offends you, no scriptural ERA?

It is not so much that you are mis-describing the objective state of women, although you are exaggerating outrageously. You're perception of where men stood in all this in seriously flawed.

Peter:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his maidservant, nor his manservant ..."

Okay, so I was a bit over the top with that lifeforms thing. But still, that last commandent is a bit telling about where wives fit in the grand scheme of things. As servants.

OJ:

"Morality does not require that women be treated as equals..."

First, I didn't say equals. Men are not the same as women. But they are entitled to just as much autonomy as men. In my mere, materialistic, morality.

Morality doesn't require that either.

Ironically, a decade after cannibalism is legalized, they'll all be killed by mad cow disease.

Not strayed, driven, at least in the case of anti-Semitism. It certainly would have been impossible for Englishmen, who had not seen a Jew for hundreds of years, to have strayed into anti-Semitism. They had to be driven to it by their moral teachers.

How do you tell a First Principle from a Second Principle, especially when you get both from the same source?

Jeff:

Oh, that is great. So if I tell you I don't like the way my weird neighbour openly envies me my wife, my kids, my car and my house, your first thought is that I am equating my wife with my car and my kids with my house?

Peter:

Please note how women are portrayed in the 10th commandment as being totally passive, incapable of coveting. Or, I suppose, an alternative reading is possible. Women aren't passive, and it is OK for them to covet.

OK, I grant you the latter isn't credible. Which makes the former certain.

OJ:

That's some morality you have, that doesn't mind subjugating women.

Jeff:

Totally passive? Yes, Jewish mothers are well-known for that.

How about dependent?

Peter:

How about the possibility that, instead of being handed down from God, Moses just made up the Ten Commandments, and said God did it?

That might account for the limited point of view.

Jeff:

Sure, and a whole tribe of thousands (who had been exposed directly to the most sophisticated civilization to date) bought it then and there without any cross-examination, not to mention a whole race of gullible descendants. The concepts of lying and fraud were completely unknown to them. Nobody suspected a thing. He was one of those old-fashioned quirky patriarchs who sought neither gold nor comfort--the joy of taking all the fun out of life was more than enough.

Peter,
Is that any different than what happens all the time in this, the most sophisticated civilization in history? Joe Smith receives golden tablets form the Archangel Moroni, thousands follow him into the desert. A thousand people follow Jim Jones to Guyana and drink poisoned koolaid, without suspecting a thing. A Harvard psychologist believes that dozens of people have actually been abducted by space aliens. Thousands of viewers send checks to Oral Roberts, believing that he is going to be struck dead by God, without suspecting a thing. Computer geeks cut off their %$# and ingest poison, believing that they will be transported to the mothership, without suspecting a thing.

Not to mention that it's doubtful they were exposed to the most sophisticated civilization. Archaeologists have found a lot of stuff in Egypt but so far not a single artifact that can be linked to Hebrews.

The book is a fairy story, folks, it ain't history.

Ah, the materialists pronounce ex cathedra! And united as always. One suspects he was a false prophet, another an egomaniac and the third that he never existed. Why do I have the feeling that any of the three would make you all equally happy?

Harry, what artifacts would you have expected? Jeff, how can you be sure Darwin didn't fake it? Robert, the answer lies in the Commandments themselves.

Peter:

Pyramids?

Peter,
How do the Commandments themselves prove that they came from God? Because they say so?

Robert:

All that and Scientology, too.

Peter:

Harry and Robert made the point very well, if a bit archly.

The point being: at least all of them but one are made up. Which one?

I'm sure you remember the kerfuffle over the Satanic Verses. Mr. Rushdie got himself in trouble because the book implied the Quran was made up on the fly.

Making we materialists happy isn't the point. That there is no way in this material world to tell between all these claims to absolute truth is, however, very much the point.

That is the reef upon which claims about all encompassing objective morality founder: which Commandments?

I can be sure Darwin didn't fake it. I can look at the same evidence he did. Did he fake the evidence? If not, then at worst he is wrong, but not a faker.

Jeff:

You're far too credulous. The point of skepticism is that we can't differentiate among truths at all until we resort to faith, thereby making reason dependent on faith and a subset of such.

There's no more reason to believe Darwin wrote anything than God did.

Robert:

You know far too much about faith to think that any religion stands or falls on whether it can convince an unbeliever it is scientifically incontrovertible. If you think Exodus and the Jim Jones saga are one and the same, bully for you. You and Jeff will always prefer an alternative materialist explanation and I agree you can always find those. Such as everybody mutated while passing through Lithuania, pre-historic men all signed utilitarian social contracts and religion was a misogynist power play. Don't like those? Never mind, there are lots more to choose from.

Yes, the content of the Commandments verifies the account. You can make what you will of that statement. I'm still trying to work it out myself. If Moses had said G-d's commandment was that everyone was to give Moses five shekels and lend him their wives, I'd be on your team.

There is an alternate explanation: That Moses really believed he had spoken to God, and received the Commandments from Him, but was mistaken. There is no reason to impugn his motives, and the belief within his own mind and in the mind of his followers that they were commanded by God to do what they were doing no doubt was of great value in making them persevere in their sojourn across the desert. I find this the more likely scenario than that he was a charlatan.

The tablets just happened to be lying around?

Robert:

"...were doing no doubt was of great value in making them persevere in their sojourn across the desert."

Big desert, long sojourn.

The Commandments as a early form of wilderness survival manual? Perhaps, but wouldn't one have expected a little less about cursing, graven images and honouring Mom and a litle more about nutrition and staying out of the sun?

However, my real problem with that is the fact that we spend a lot of time on this site defending against charges that religion is not only irrational, it is the source of slaughter, racism, misogyny, ignorance and whatever else is upsetting Harry on a given day. How can it be both that and also a source of peace, strength and survival for a fractious and desperate mob of ex-slaves?

Why can't it? Why cannot a system that gives comfort to an individual also encourage those same individuals, when they get into groups, to act like gangsters?

That's pretty much what the record shows.

The fact of religious murder is a fact. Deal with it.

I am even going to give you that religion is a comfort to individuals. Some say it is. My own experience, with family and friends, is that whatever comfort religion gives is more than balanced out by the anguish of doubt -- something one or two posters here have referred to in their own inner lives. But there's lots of people who say religion gives them comfort. They usually sound somewhat defensive, but if they say it, it must be so.

Why can't it? Why cannot a system that gives comfort to an individual also encourage those same individuals, when they get into groups, to act like gangsters?

That's pretty much what the record shows.

The fact of religious murder is a fact. Deal with it.

I am even going to give you that religion is a comfort to individuals. Some say it is. My own experience, with family and friends, is that whatever comfort religion gives is more than balanced out by the anguish of doubt -- something one or two posters here have referred to in their own inner lives. But there's lots of people who say religion gives them comfort. They usually sound somewhat defensive, but if they say it, it must be so.

Why can't it? Why cannot a system that gives comfort to an individual also encourage those same individuals, when they get into groups, to act like gangsters?

That's pretty much what the record shows.

The fact of religious murder is a fact. Deal with it.

I am even going to give you that religion is a comfort to individuals. Some say it is. My own experience, with family and friends, is that whatever comfort religion gives is more than balanced out by the anguish of doubt -- something one or two posters here have referred to in their own inner lives. But there's lots of people who say religion gives them comfort. They usually sound somewhat defensive, but if they say it, it must be so.

I'm with Harry opn that one--there's no reason Christianity can't be true, comforting, discomforting, and contribute both evil and good to the world. Christianity doesn't remove our humanity after all. The point is it contributes far more good than any of the negatives and is the greatest source of good known to Man.

Harry:

I think Robert's point was that religion may have helped save a whole tribe/society, not made some individuals feel good.

Whoever denied religious murder?

If that's Robert's point, he's right some of the time.

Tom C., who has disappeared, often poohpoohed the extent of religious murder, and it is not uncommon to see it excused, for example, Orrin's judgment on the Cathars.

Me, I object to murder, tout court, although then we can argue about which homicides are murders.

SV, who made a very brief appearance here, argued that the good religion does outweighs the bad. Hard to quantify, but in my value system you have to help an awful lot of old ladies across the street to overbalance a habit of burning an occasional one at the stake.

Geez, Harry, how much good are y'all secularists going to have to do to make up for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, abortion...

To say that religious belief can be helpful to a person or a tribe does not necessarily mean that it helps them to be more moral. I think that it adds survival value, when faced with overwhelming challenges, to believe that you have the assistance of a supernatural power.

Survival, while a necessary and good thing, does not automatically equate to morality. You can survive by conquering a neighboring tribe and taking their lands and goods. Or you can survive by turning a wilderness into a productive agricultural resource. Individuals can use the enhanced sense of empowerment brought by belief in a supporting god, or a guiding star, or fate, etc to do good for their community, or to amass power and fortune for themselves.

Of course, the belief only brings out capabilities that are already present in the individual. Once you come to realize this, or lose the ability to believe, it is still possible to acheive the same level of accomplishment without the belief. It just takes more self assurance.

Ah, more self-assurance, just like y'all are "more tough-minded", etc. The uber-menschen...

OJ:
Rather than ridicule Robert's assertion, you should examine it.

Is it possible that persevering despite lacking any belief that some supreme deity being is on your side requires self assurance?

When faced with difficulty or tragedy, religionists often pray to God for the strength to continue; when they do, they believe God provided them with that strength. (Pardon for any excessive generalization.)

Areligionists don't have anywhere to go. Since arligionists aren't any more immune to lifes difficulties than religionists are, that means areligionists are forced to find the required strength from internal resources--self assurance, if you will.

Kind of like remaining an atheist despite being in a foxhole.

Of course, that means all the people deriving the strength to prevail from a fictitious God (all the ones but yours) means they actually had the strength all along, but wouldn't believe it without a contrived supernatural imprimatur.

BTW, if memory serves "more tough minded" is a misquote, since "more" wasn't there.

Yes, Jeff. The religious are weak-minded and the atheists are tougher and more assured. You are right to set yourself up as a god.

Orrin,
You just won't let go of your straw man, will you?

There are many athiests who fit your straw man, but I am not one of them. I don't think that athiests, as a group, are any more or less self assured than believers. Self assurance and belief are independent variables. Speaking for myself, I am at the lower end of the self-assurance scale, believe me. I can use all the help I can get.

I had to face this kind of challenge when I joined the Marine Corps. I went through the PLC program at Quantico, which is like a boot camp, but for the purpose of evaluating a candidate's leadership potential. I was still nominally religious at the time, but that actually wasn't much help, as I was more of a "turn the other cheek" Christian, and the MC was looking for a "bash the other guy's cheek in" aggressiveness.

Well, I managed to graduate PLC and was commissioned after my college graduation. I managed to find the strength and toughness that I didn't know I had, but it wasn't through God.

OJ:

You could do me the greatest favor by replying to what I said, rather than putting words into my mouth.

Just in case you didn't notice, I never used the terms weak, or strong, minded, nor did I ever make any comment about the self assurance of religionists, nor did I compare the self assurance of areligionists vs. religionists.

And where I did refer to the self assurance of certain religionists, it was to assert they had it, because they couldn't have possibly gotten it from a false god.

Finally, I did not set myself up as a god in any way, shape, or form.

When replying to posts here, I do my level best to understand and reply to the arguments on display, without resorting to baseless insults, distortions, or deliberate misquoting. Is it too much to ask you to do the same?

Robert:

I spent my career in the Air Force, but spent the last two years of it in the Navy, and had about 15 Marines in my command. From them I learned there is no finer group in the US. My hat is off to you, sir.

"religionists often pray to God for the strength to continue; when they do, they believe God provided them with that strength. [...]

areligionists are forced to find the required strength from internal resources--self assurance"

OJ:

Is the first sentence true you quoted true, or not? If I were to say that to a religionist, would they find it insulting, or an obvious reason for their faith?

Is the second sentence true, or not?

Did I call religionists weak minded? Did I say they lacked assurance?

Did I say atheists are tougher than religionists?

Where did I set myself up as a god?

"When replying to posts here, I do my level best to understand and reply to the arguments on display, without resorting to baseless insults, distortions, or deliberate misquoting. Is it too much to ask you to do the same?"

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

That is astonishing. I can't count the number of times I've seen TV preachers exhort their flocks to pray to God to get the strength to do one thing or another. Or the number of times I have heard religious people say God answered their prayers and gave them the strength to prevail.

So your first answer is wrong.

Where do areligionists get their strength in similar circumstances, except from internal resources?

Please directly quote where I called religionists weak minded, or atheists tough minded, or that I set myself up as a God.

There are two signs of a bankrupt argument: ad hominem attacks, and relying on strawmen.

You advocate death for the inconvenient children, elderly, and handicapped--thereby taking responsibility for innocent lives on yourself, as a god.

OJ:

Unless you can produce a quote to that effect, then you better reconsider that statement.

Since you neglected to rebut the rest, may I take it you were wrong?

Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?

OJ:

Those questions require answers, not more questions. You made some serious charges. I presume you are prepared to back them up.

Unless, of course, you don't take "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." particularly seriously.

An odd position for someone so concerned with morality.

Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?

OJ:

You made the charge, you back it up.

Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?

OJ:

You made a charge of fact. Unless you can back it up, then I can only conclude you have no qualms about bearing false witness.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?

I take it from your lack of substantiation that you lied.

If you can prove me wrong, I will most humbly apologize.

Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?

You made an accusation you can't back up. You wouldn't have to keep repeating that question if you could. You have borne false witness.

I can tell I need not take any morality lessons from you.

ASSERTION: "You advocate death for the inconvenient children, elderly, and handicapped--thereby taking responsibility for innocent lives on yourself, as a god."

QUESTION: "Do you support or oppose abortion and euthanasia?"

OJ:

The problem is, you made the accusation. Either you already have evidence to back that accusation up--the presenting of which would make my answering your question purely redundant--or you lied.

Which is it?

I lied. You oppose abortion and euthanasia and I've misunderstood you. I apologize.