.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Hanson, Andy
|
“A Moral Compass:” Thoughts on the Subject by Joe Erwin
Submitted: Feb 26, 2013
By Andy Hanson
Edited by Andy Hanson
Introduction
I was fascinated by Joe Erwin’s carefully crafted comments on Chris Barrett’s blog, “Sin: The Dirty Little Word that Trivializes Morality and Warps Ethics.” Consequently, I strung some of them together, did a little editing, and was happy with the result. So was Joe.
I was also captivated by Joe’s biography in which he chronicles growing up Adventist—check it out if you missed it—and the open minded and thoughtful way he discussed a possible evolutionary etiology of moral reasoning. In addition, I was impressed by his ability to present his point of view with the kind of authority that bespoke gentleness and integrity.
Dr. Erwin may no longer be a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but I want to go on record as saying that “When the Son of Man comes in his glory,” I’d be happy to be standing next to him. Andy
Joe Erwin
All we really need to do is treat others as we would like to be treated. Due consideration of others is a fine basis for ethics and morality. One can accept and implement this standard of respect and conduct whether or not he believes it is God-given.
I can understand why people would wish to foster the illusion in themselves and others that we live in a world in which absolute laws are always the same and always in effect. But, if you really believe the message of Jesus, it seems you would have to ease up on that—especially since he advocated the golden rule.
For the golden rule to work as an ethical guide or moral compass there must be adequate self-knowledge and awareness of one's own feelings and motivations, and some empathy for the feelings and motivations of others.
There does not need to be a threat of eternal torment as a punishment for failure or a promise of paradise as a reward or bribe for doing the right thing. Doing the "right thing" is its own reward. We get to use our own brains to decide how to behave.
This is not to say that one must be an intellectual giant to exercise due consideration or some degree of empathy. To the contrary, people like Frans deWaal make a strong case for such abilities even in nonhumans.
One of the cool things about committing to treat others as one wishes to be treated is that the principle promotes knowledge of self and understanding of others. The better one knows one's self and others, the more accurately considerate (and moral and ethical) one can be. If one's faith in God reinforces the commitment or ability treat others with due consideration, that is just great, as far as I'm concerned.
For those who don't get the point of treating others as they would like to be treated, parental, institutional, governmental, or other authoritarian guidance may be essential. However, those whose inclination is toward oppositional and defiant behavior, the Golden Rule is not likely to operate as a guide to their behavior.
We also see plenty of examples in nature of interactions that do not work out so well for some of the interactors. When the wild chimpanzee mother goes crazy and eats her own infant or that of another mother, that is pretty unfortunate for the victims, and it really does not provide real benefits to anyone.
For whatever reason, many humans are able to look at other people and at nature in general and see that some patterns of behavior are disruptive and harmful, even painful, and that others are pleasant, nurturing and sustaining. We have labeled our ability to sense the pain and pleasure in others as "empathy."
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pinch a monkey he will probably bite you. Being gentle to cats or dogs tends to get them to stay around and be gentle back to you. It works the same with people. If you are cruel to them the chances increase that they will hurt you back. We see these dynamics when people or other animals fight. Now, if fighting and hurting others gives you enough pleasure that you are willing to endure the consequences of pain or injury inflicted on you in return, you may well develop a combative lifestyle. However, even those whose lifestyle is combative can't always afford the luxury of fighting. Sometimes cooperating, even with someone you feel like hitting, turns out to be critical to the survival of both you and your adversary.
When you are able to sense the different consequences of how you interact with others, when you are able to predict what actions are most likely to minimize your own pain and maximize your own pleasure, you are beginning to distinguish between negative and destructive behavior and positive and constructive behavior. Even this self-serving "reciprocal altruism" leads to "due consideration" and treating others as you wish to be treated.
Whether one wishes to believe the Creator God designed us this way or not, it seems to me that we are equipped with at least some rudimentary talent for exercising value judgments that amount to bases of ethical or moral choices. Beyond that, we can discuss—and likely will, endlessly—what it means to make decisions and have preferences for some values over others. The ability to consider options, assign relative values, sense and anticipate responses of others, make choices and act on them, are neurobiologically based and have had sufficient adaptive value to contribute to survival. But it seems to me that the mechanism is extremely complicated, and enables choice among all sorts of options—some of which might be considered moral, immoral or amoral.
Disagreement among people who claim expertise in evolutionary biology is quite common, because the extent of their knowledge and understanding differs, and also because what they have written may well be opinion or be variously speculative or a mixture. I'm suggesting that there is probably a choice mechanism involving neurological circuitry (probably in cingulate and insular cortex) that enables consideration and choice of options. My guess is that individual differences in the neural substrates of this mechanism are far more variable than is the morphology of hands, feet and teeth. A wide range of potential options remains within the repertoire. Utterly selfish and exploitive choices have not been selected out. Neither have empathetic or "moral" options.
So part of the question evolutionary psychologists might ask is why both "moral" and "immoral" patterns of behavior persist, and what have been the positive and negative survival values of each? Given the array of behavioral possibilities and contexts, coming up with simple answers that are also satisfyingly comprehensive is not so easy, but that doesn't keep people from trying. When they do, the explanations are often pretty speculative and need to be held very gently.
________________________
Join in the discussion:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
And, Joe, great to see you presented in such a way. At least for me, it highlights the value we can have for one another as an AT community, no matter how far towards, or beyond the edges of relevance we may be, or appear to be to others. It is too easy for us readers to just see a name on a comment and not understand the depth of experience, thought, and study that may lay behind it.
Wisdom is not saying profound things, it is saying profound things simply. Joe has done that imho.
Very interesting. If someone is utterly selfish, and it leads to extreme behaviour like being a psychopath or even more extreme as say a serial rapists or killer, then presumably in social species at least, those people tend to become outcasts one way or another (i.e. killed, exiled, imprisoned etc)? And I assume then that in many cases those people don't get to pass on their genes?
On the other hand, if someone is utterly selfless, they probably have a behaviour pattern that is predisposed to putting someone else's survival ahead of their own. One might imagine with such a martyr complex, such persons are also not as likely to pass on their genes?
Might that explain evolutionary pressures to maitain a 'mixed' human population towards selfishness and selfishless? Very interesting points nonetheless. I am not sure what the theological implications of this might be (given this is a Christian website)?
The existence of more than one genetic alternative in the gene pool of a population is well established in genomics, as many "SNPs" have been found in most populations studied (SNPs = single nucleotide polymorphisms).
Maybe a theological implication is that not everyone should be held to identical standards, i.e., there should be some reasonable toleration of diversity.
Firstly Joe or Andy said "I can understand why people would wish to foster the illusion in themselves and others that we live in a world in which absolute laws are always the same and always in effect. But, if you really believe the message of Jesus, it seems you would have to ease up on that—especially since he advocated the golden rule.
I could write a book on why I have issues on that statement but I will try to summarise them here. I believe there is an apparent contradiction because he is hedging his assertion on absolute laws being an illusion on another law (golden rule). Is the godlen rule absolute and universal or it chsges with time and area? If the golden rule is absolute, then why choose which laws are absolute and which ones are not? who made you the arbiter in this regard? I actually believe many foster the ILLUSION of moral relativity.
The golden rule which I believe in cannot exist by itself as an independent law or it becomes self contradictory. For example Chris or Stephen Ferguson like to have their beliefs challenged and if the golden rule is to be applied that means they will challenge other people's beliefs even if it makes them unhappy. Another example would be of a workaholic and meticulous individual, if that person were to project the way he would like to be treated on to others you would have a lot of unhappy lazy people. In summary what I am saying is that the golden rule cannot operate in a vacuum becuase different people want to be treatred differently.
I would agree with Joe's assessment that it should perhaps be:
"Treat others as you would wish to be treated if you were them."
That is a very good point by Joe. Further to my discussion above, I wonder if Christians and other 'believers' might have some erroneous stereotypes about what 'moral' and 'immoral' behaviour is exactly? Is it immoral to be selfish and moral to be selfish - or is that too simplistic?
To follow the Godlen Rule we need to love others as we love ourselves, but what if we don't love ourselves? What if we hate ourselves? Isn't loving yourself a necessary part of the Golden Rule?
I am reminded of the Cardinal of Scottland who just resigned because complaints re his homosexual advances on other male priests. He also incidentally was one of the biggest anti-homosexual advocates in Britain.
So people obviously ask, how could this be? The Cardinal obviously was following his own warped version of the Golden Rule - he was hating homosexuals as much as he hated himself, a closet homosexual.
"I can understand why people would wish to foster the illusion in themselves and others that we live in a world in which absolute laws are always the same and always in effect."
For the above reason, I think there are in fact 'universal laws' of a sort (or universal principles if that sounds less dogmatic), including in human nature. Despite all our technology we are essentially the same animals we were 10,000 years ago.
The Golden Rule appears to be one of those universal principles, in both its good forms (of loving oneself) and bad forms (hating oneself). As for religion, politics, history and philosophy, I am always astounded by how often we continually have the same debates, over and over, just adopting different terminology.
There seems to be certain things that are indeed 'neurobiologically based' - hardwired into our brains. The Golden Rule appears to be one of those things - in both its good and bad forms. We don't need a theologian, philosopher or lawyer to tell us, as Joe rightly points out when he says, 'It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pinch a monkey he will probably bite you.'
'Whether one wishes to believe the Creator God designed us this way or not...'
The only thing I would add is human beings do seem hardwired to believe in this Creator God. Again, we use different names and terminology, and have the same debates about who or what God is exactly (there seems to be 3 basic human models in all cultures, tongues, and peoples across history), but most humans seem to believe in God.
Yes there are some who reject this hardwiring towards God, just as there are outliers in our population who have no sense of empathy, such as our psychopaths (not that I am saying atheists are bad people like psychopaths). My only point is the attempt to 'educate' people away from good is probably about as useful as attempting therapy on many other hardwired human beliefs and practices.
My only point is the attempt to 'educate' people away from belief God is probably about as useful as attempting therapy on many other hardwired human beliefs and practices. Even if atheism is scientifically and philosophically correct, it is virtually impossible to override that human hardwiring towards diesm in the vast, vast majority of the human species. Humans are as much homos divinus as homo sapiens.
So loving yourself is a prerequisite for the golden rule to be applied correctly hmmm.... unfortunately you foster in yourself the absolute rule to love oneself. I always get excited whan atheists and agnostics discuss morality, the linguistic gymnastics employed and the intellectual dishonesty used all to circumvent the one fundamental question
"is there an atheistic universal, objective morality? What are some of its tenets. which clauses did Hitler infringe to earn him disparagemnt from fellow atheists?
Yes it is, as have the Jewish sages long recognised. My example of the closet homosexual Cardinal who was one of the most publically anti-gay person in Britain demonstrates what happens when you hate yourself - you apply the Golden Rule in a very destructive way. One hates others as they hate oneself.
'...unfortunately you foster in yourself the absolute rule to love oneself.'
Not sure what you mean here? Are you saying I am a narcisist? Is this your application of the Golden Rule - how you would like to be treated?
'...is there an atheistic universal, objective morality?'
I agree insofar as we mistake the question of source versus effect. Dr Lennox made a similar point in his debate with Prof. Dawkins in a public debate I recently saw (check it out on Youtube).
No one is saying atheists can't be moral - they are of course. The question is what is the source of that morality? How do we define morality, or alturism, if it is just relative, especially if it is just an evolved strategy?
Is it just a genetic trick, to con me to give up resources I could better spend on myself? We can get why as an evolutionary strategy for society as a whole my alturism works, but why should I, myself, do it? Is it because if I pinch the monkey he'll bite me? What if I could restrain the monkey first, so I was sure he couldn't bite me - should I pinch him then?
In some ways deists who focus on eternal reward are not that different from atheist philosophers who argue we shouldn't pinch the monkey because he might bite me. It doesn't really explain why if there is no reward or punishment one should consider doing the right thing is reward itself.
Is a rose by another name really just as sweet?
I was being sarcastic. Your and I believe in other moral absolutes besides the golden rule and that other laws e.g loving oneself is imperative to the golden rule rule being applied correctly. I was simply using Joe's expression to make a sarcastic comment to yourself otherwise I .......*choke*.... agree .... with you!
Just doing good and treating others well, based on our own perception or collective perceptions of what this entails, is clearly variable as the ‘different strokes for different folks’ is invoked and applied here. Then there are also the cultural pressures and stigmas found within the context of the various cultural groups found in a society. For example: some are keen on applying the ‘golden rule’ using the ‘teach them to fish’ or the ‘tough love’ approach which may have some spin-offs among the many other systems in the ‘doing good’ department of society.
Christianity offers us in Christ Jesus a change of heart. It’s not just about putting new coats on the backs of the poor which I think is also cool but more than that: a new heart. From this position, the ‘golden rule’ is principled and compelling as it based on unconditional love – and not just the ‘you scratch my back me I scratch yours’ or the ‘I’m ok you’re ok’ approach but a deep desire to serve God and serve man. Jesus pushed the boundary further when he said: love your enemies, do good to those that hate you and bless those that curse you [Luke 6:27-30]. The golden rule from a Christian perspective is therefore much more a matter of heart than just a good cultural ideal. I others will perhaps disagree with this and I respect that.
(1John 1:5-10 [ISV])
This is the message that we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness—none at all! If we claim that we have fellowship with him but keep living in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves. If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have never sinned, we make him a liar and his word has no place in us.
I don't teach at Georgetown, but I have an appointment at GWU. I seldom go there, though. I do get as far as Rockville, MD, pretty often, and can always hop on the Metro to get downtown, if that is the best place to meet. My most reliable consulting client is in the Shady Grove life sciences complex near the hospital. There is a pretty good Indian restaurant with a lunch buffet at Shady Grove and Rockville Pike/355.
Let me know. This could be fun.
Perhaps addressing the logical diversions presented at times in reference to tension between law and love and the application of the royal commandment is what we ought consider. How about this perspective on what it means to love self first, and the implications towards loving another. Ultimately, when love (in opheleo sense) is fully practiced, one discovers love is ultimately benefiting self, ie selfish. Why does God wish to invoke love from his people? Does this not ultimately benefit everybody, including God, who "is" love? many of these arguments really seem to boil down to the bitterness of someone else being loved first, or more, or seemingly underservingly.
What if we took a patient -and longer and broader view-of love?
“What angers us in another person
is more often than not an unhealed aspect of ourselves.
If we had already resolved that particular issue,
we would not be irritated by its reflection back to us.”
― Simon Peter Fuller
If i but learned grace towards my unfolding journey as I move towards my ideal self i would thereby exhibit grace to you in your own quest. Would this not have strong reverberations within you, and begin to change the kingdom at hand?
Be this radical agent of change, and first love yourself, or you will be unable to thoroughly love your neighbor or your kingdom with all of your heart and your head and your hand...
It was put to me well by a young, savvy pastor: "If Brother B complains that Brother C is an atheist, it's a fair assumption that Brother B himself has questions about the existence of God. He and I may ostensibly discuss the problems of Brother C, but ultimately we're addressing Brother B's fears about his own faith in God."
This good counsel has saved me many hours of time through life and helped me avoid fighting battles that at heart are more about the complainer himself than the person who is alleged to have offended and fallen short....
Theoretically the "Golden Rule" should work for a mature individual; but as someone else said, too many people don't love themselves (or some too much) or even know what that means. In other words, it would only work in a perfect world.
I would also question how it would work among a primitive people group as our ancestors certainly were and those who would need to understand what love looks like.
You have highlighted reasons why the Golden Rule is impossible without loving others; which is indicative of the reality that it is only workable in a spiritual context or by way of God’s Spirit.
In an "ideal" world (one that is invariably constructive, positive, and good) perhaps there would be no need of any ethical principle at all.
We live in an imperfect world, and only a small percentage (not even myself) seem to be up to always living by the Golden Rule. I don't have much faith that humanity, as it currently exists, will ever be up to it. It hasn't happened in the past, and probably never will. It can be a personal goal as I believe it is for you. God bless.