Grace, Morality, and Biology

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

MODERATOR NOTE: This thread was split from another discussion. --Roger

Maybe even if your brothers and sisters in Christ don’t see things your way and thank you for correcting them, you can still extend them grace. Everyone is in need of that, no?

Ephesians 4

Unity in the Body of Christ

1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
Maybe even if your brothers and sisters in Christ don’t see things your way and thank you for correcting them, you can still extend them grace. Everyone is in need of that, no?

Grace is an admirable quality whether one is a brother/sister in Christ or not.

Not that grace plays a large part in relentlessly banging on that door all night because of the alleged bomb in the basement.

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

No, it doesn't

. But the beauty of it is that those who would follow Christ extend grace regardless of whether someone deserves it or not--because that's what Christ does.

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
No, it doesn't . But the beauty of it is that those who would follow Christ extend grace regardless of whether someone deserves it or not--because that's what Christ does.

I'm more impressed by people who extend grace (or perform any moral action) because it's the right thing to do - and for no other reason whatsoever.

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

What would make it the 'right thing to do?'

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
What would make it the 'right thing to do?'

It's right if it's fair.

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
It's right if it's fair.

Well, fair would mean I extend you grace, if you extend me grace. Is that what you mean?

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
Well, fair would mean I extend you grace, if you extend me grace. Is that what you mean?

No - that's "do unto others as they do unto you."

Fair is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
No - that's "do unto others as they do unto you."

Fair is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

No, I think fair is the first one. An eye for an eye.

So doing the right thing isn't necessarily doing the fair thing.

davids · Aug 3, 2006

Fair Grace extended her hand to them-some received the peace and the joy freely offered to them-some spat on her-some live with Grace-some do not

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

davids said:
Fair Grace extended her hand to them-some received the peace and the joy freely offered to them-some spat on her-some live with Grace-some do not

Hmm. A new kind of fair. It's right because it's beautiful. And what makes Fair Grace so beautiful?

davids · Aug 3, 2006

If you ask the still-small voice sitting in the softness of your soul-God will answer

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
No, I think fair is the first one. An eye for an eye.

So doing the right thing isn't necessarily doing the fair thing.

Your definition of "fair" is the same as "revenge", and I disagree with it.

Fairness is the basis of morality. If we lived by "an eye for an eye" (the opposite of grace), we'd have gone extinct a very long time ago. Furthermore, "an eye for an eye" mentality degrades humanity IMO. Poking out your eye because you poked out mine makes both of us poorer.

What's "moral" is whatever behavior is the most effective, and therefore the best, at ensuring our survival as social beings. The most effective behavior for the survival of social beings is treating others as you want to be treated.

In my experience religious people of all persuasions (especially fundamentalists, since that's the topic of the thread) tend to define morality otherwise. They define morality as arbitrary rules that come from the supernatural realm, ie. from on high. Some of those arbitrary rules happen to be quite sensible, of course, but still - following rules because they are rules, instead of because they are right, is not moral behavior. It's like being accidentally moral as long as the rule happens to be moral.

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

davids said:
If you ask the still-small voice sitting in the softness of your soul-God will answer

I'm interested to know how you tell the difference between God's answer and some random answer your mind came up with?

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
Your definition of "fair" is the same as "revenge", and I disagree with it.

Fairness is the basis of morality. If we lived by "an eye for an eye" (the opposite of grace), we'd have gone extinct a very long time ago. Furthermore, "an eye for an eye" mentality degrades humanity IMO. Poking out your eye because you poked out mine makes both of us poorer.

What's "moral" is whatever behavior is the most effective, and therefore the best, at ensuring our survival as social beings. The most effective behavior for the survival of social beings is treating others as you want to be treated.

In my experience religious people of all persuasions (especially fundamentalists, since that's the topic of the thread) tend to define morality otherwise. They define morality as arbitrary rules that come from the supernatural realm, ie. from on high. Some of those arbitrary rules happen to be quite sensible, of course, but still - following rules because they are rules, instead of because they are right, is not moral behavior. It's like being accidentally moral as long as the rule happens to be moral.

I think I'd agree with you that rules should always be followed because they are 'right'--not because they are rules. The first is true morality, the second is legalism. I'm just wondering where you get your definition for 'right'. Now it seems like you're saying that 'right' is whatever ensures the survival of the species?

davids · Aug 3, 2006

It does not matter a witches tit-for some it is God-if you don't want to believe it simply does not matter except to God-the heart and the mind live in the same place-perhaps for pb10220 and definately for myself it is the still-small-voice of God-for SonoranWriter perhaps it is not God it is whatever SonoranWriter wants-for some fear always outwits the intellect of the soul and for some fear is not necessary-so the soul is often not outwitted.

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
I think I'd agree with you that rules should always be followed because they are 'right'--not because they are rules. The first is true morality, the second is legalism. I'm just wondering where you get your definition for 'right'. Now it seems like you're saying that 'right' is whatever ensures the survival of the species?

Yes - I think morality is biologically determined.

What are the other options? That morality is a philosophical thing, or a supernaturally dictated thing. The first seems irrelevant (because morality relates to actions, not philosophical theory) and the second equates to "God is right, therefore what is right is what God says is right" which is a tautology that begs the question: How do you know God is right? It doesn't really get us anywhere.

What is your definition of "right"? Does your definition include the concept of God?

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

davids said:
It does not matter a witches tit-for some it is God-if you don't want to believe it simply does not matter except to God-the heart and the mind live in the same place-perhaps for pb10220 and definately for myself it is the still-small-voice of God-for SonoranWriter perhaps it is not God it is whatever SonoranWriter wants-for some fear always outwits the intellect of the soul and for some fear is not necessary-so the soul is often not outwitted.

Hi davids. Your answer is quite confusing to me. When I asked "how do you tell the difference between God's answer and some random answer your mind came up with?" perhaps I should have emphasized "you". I really did mean, how do you tell the difference?

Can you tell the difference, and if so, how do you tell the difference?

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
Yes - I think morality is biologically determined.

What are the other options? That morality is a philosophical thing, or a supernaturally dictated thing. The first seems irrelevant (because morality relates to actions, not philosophical theory) and the second equates to "God is right, therefore what is right is what God says is right" which is a tautology that begs the question: How do you know God is right? It doesn't really get us anywhere.

What is your definition of "right"? Does your definition include the concept of God?

Yes, my definition includes the concept of God. But let me explore your thoughts just a bit further, if that's all right. This is interesting to me. If "right" is defined by whatever contributes to the survival of the species, then it raises another question in my mind...what about Hitler's actions? He was trying to contribute to the survival of what he considered 'the cream' of the species. Do you mean the survival of just the 'good' people, or the survival of all people?

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
Yes, my definition includes the concept of God. But let me explore your thoughts just a bit further, if that's all right. This is interesting to me. If "right" is defined by whatever contributes to the survival of the species, then it raises another question in my mind...what about Hitler's actions? He was trying to contribute to the survival of what he considered 'the cream' of the species. Do you mean the survival of just the 'good' people, or the survival of all people?

It's not a biologically good thing that only the cream of the crop survive, because species require biodiversity to survive.

Also, had Hitler been a Jew, he would have had a very different view of what should be done with Jews. In fact, any rational person who isn't a Jew understands that it's wrong (unfair) to kill Jews. That Hitler didn't understand this proves that he wasn't able to empathize, ie. he was a sociopath.

When deciding what actions are right and wrong, the actions of a sociopath don't bear much weight.

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
It's not a biologically good thing that only the cream of the crop survive, because species require biodiversity to survive.

Also, had Hitler been a Jew, he would have had a very different view of what should be done with Jews. In fact, any rational person who isn't a Jew understands that it's wrong (unfair) to kill Jews. That Hitler didn't understand this proves that he wasn't able to empathize, ie. he was a sociopath.

When deciding what actions are right and wrong, the actions of a sociopath don't bear much weight.

But he was only a sociopath because we deemed his actions "wrong"...but that gets us back to the question of what constitutes "right."

Looking at your first statement, biodiversity is a physical trait. But what I was talking about was that Hitler placed a moral value on the people he chose to eliminate--that of "bad." Hitler was a member of the human species. Was Hitler's concept of morality biologically inborn in him--and if so, why did he have a different concept than you or me?

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
But he was only a sociopath because we deemed his actions "wrong"...but that gets us back to the question of what constitutes "right."

He was a sociopath because he couldn't empathize - just like blind people are blind because they can't see. That isn't an opinion that we "deemed" to be true - it's a fact: someone who can't empathize with other humans is not capable of moral judgment.

pb10220 said:
Looking at your first statement, biodiversity is a physical trait. But what I was talking about was that Hitler placed a moral value on the people he chose to eliminate--that of "bad." Hitler was a member of the human species. Was Hitler's concept of morality biologically inborn in him--and if so, why did he have a different concept than you or me?

To generalize your argument, I think you're asking: how do we know whose moral judgments are correct, since we're all humans with the same basic biology? ("How do we know..." is my favorite question.)

If morality is biologically determined, then there is an "objective morality": what's good for the species is right. This doesn't mean that individuals will all agree on what's right in any specific circumstance, and it certainly doesn't mean they will act according to what's right, because people are motivated by many things other than survival of the species.

Most animals act on instinct and don't have this problem. They don't understand, or need to understand, what's "right" and "wrong" (ie. they are amoral; they are not moral beings). Everything they do is by definition "right" because their instincts evolved to perpetuate the species.

Hitler judged certain people to be "bad" based on faulty logic, and his faulty logic arose because he was devoid of empathy. The clearest proof that he was wrong to judge people "bad" based on race is that his system failed. Moral systems, decisions and actions work because they're best for the species. Immoral systems die.

(Would a blind man's opinion on whether the Mona Lisa was a good picture mean anything? His eyes are broken. Hitler's moral compass was broken.)

Religious morality, on the other hand, is entirely relative. "What God says is right, is right." If tomorrow God says killing babies is right, does that mean suddenly it's right to kill babies?

Pat~ · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
He was a sociopath because he couldn't empathize - just like blind people are blind because they can't see. That isn't an opinion that we "deemed" to be true - it's a fact: someone who can't empathize with other humans is not capable of moral judgment.

To generalize your argument, I think you're asking: how do we know whose moral judgments are correct, since we're all humans with the same basic biology? ("How do we know..." is my favorite question.)

If morality is biologically determined, then there is an "objective morality": what's good for the species is right. This doesn't mean that individuals will all agree on what's right in any specific circumstance, and it certainly doesn't mean they will act according to what's right, because people are motivated by many things other than survival of the species.

Most animals act on instinct and don't have this problem. They don't understand, or need to understand, what's "right" and "wrong" (ie. they are amoral; they are not moral beings). Everything they do is by definition "right" because their instincts evolved to perpetuate the species.

Hitler judged certain people to be "bad" based on faulty logic, and his faulty logic arose because he was devoid of empathy. The clearest proof that he was wrong to judge people "bad" based on race is that his system failed. Moral systems, decisions and actions work because they're best for the species. Immoral systems die.

(Would a blind man's opinion on whether the Mona Lisa was a good picture mean anything? His eyes are broken. Hitler's moral compass was broken.)

Religious morality, on the other hand, is entirely relative. "What God says is right, is right." If tomorrow God says killing babies is right, does that mean suddenly it's right to kill babies?

But you're deducing he was devoid of moral empathy--because he didn't have the same morals as other people. Just like you're deducing his moral compass was "broken" because he had different standards about what was "good" and "bad". You are starting with the assumption that he was bad. Why was his logic 'faulty'? I guess the key thing is still, why do we say he was evil (nonempathetic, morally broken, etc.) rather than good? He was into creating a super-race, and according to your definition of good, that which promotes the strength of the species is "good."

If morality is biologically determined, then there is an "objective morality": what's good for the species is right.

But that precludes a subjective basis: who gets to be the judge of what's good for the species? Hitler thought what was good for the species was the extinction of Jews, and certain other people. So your objective morality is actually very subjective.

Religious morality, on the other hand, is entirely relative. "What God says is right, is right." If tomorrow God says killing babies is right, does that mean suddenly it's right to kill babies?

If one believes in God, then religious morality can't be relative, because it's based upon a God who is absolute, and unchanging in His standards. That's because God's standard for Good is Himself. And He cannot deny Himself, or deny His own character, or He would cease to be.

SonoranWriter · Aug 3, 2006

pb10220 said:
But you're deducing he was devoid of moral empathy--because he didn't have the same morals as other people. Just like you're deducing his moral compass was "broken" because he had different standards about what was "good" and "bad". You are starting with the assumption that he was bad.

Not at all. I'm starting with the assumption that "good" means "best for the species". He did things that were bad for the species, therefore he was bad.

Why do you think Hitler was bad? Because he broke the commandment "Thou shalt not murder"? Why is that commandment good? Because God says so? Or is there something inherently bad about murder?

pb10220 said:
Why was his logic 'faulty'? I guess the key thing is still, why do we say he was evil (nonempathetic, morally broken, etc.) rather than good? He was into creating a super-race, and according to your definition of good, that which promotes the strength of the species is "good."

Assuming he was right that Jews are genetically inferior, his goal of a super-race doesn't promote the strength of the species - reducing biodiversity is bad for the species. His conclusion was wrong. Since Jews are not in fact genetically inferior, his premise was wrong. Faulty logic either way.

pb10220 said:
But that precludes a subjective basis: who gets to be the judge of what's good for the species? Hitler thought what was good for the species was the extinction of Jews, and certain other people. So your objective morality is actually very subjective.

There is no subjective basis for morality. What's good for the species is biologically determined - it's not determined by our opinions. How do we know what's good for the species? We devise experiments and find out. You can't beat empirical data for illuminating the truth.

pb10220 said:
If one believes in God, then religious morality can't be relative, because it's based upon a God who is absolute, and unchanging in His standards. That's because God's standard for Good is Himself. And He cannot deny Himself, or deny His own character, or He would cease to be.

He can't...? I thought God could to anything.

(Okay, I know the answer to that: he can't do anything that goes against his nature.)

I see no evidence at all that God is absolute and unchanging. He changes his mind all the time in the bible. He changed his mind about the very creation of mankind. God-given "morality" changes vastly from the Old to the New Testament.

"God's standard for Good is Himself" doesn't make sense to me. Are you defining God as good? On what do you base that assumption? ("Because God said so" is not a logical answer.)

reph · Aug 3, 2006

SonoranWriter said:
If morality is biologically determined, then there is an "objective morality": what's good for the species is right.

And if morality isn't biologically determined, what's good for other species may be right, too.

Most animals act on instinct.... They don't understand, or need to understand, what's "right" and "wrong".... Everything they do is by definition "right" because their instincts evolved to perpetuate the species.

Do you assume that evolution is finished and animals' behavior is now perfectly attuned to what their species needs? Many species now living will go extinct someday. Perhaps the instinctual behavior of some will hasten that event.

Hitler judged certain people to be "bad" based on faulty logic, and his faulty logic arose because he was devoid of empathy.

I have to disagree. I think logic had nothing to do with it. It was emotional, not logical. Hitler judged certain people to be "bad" because the defense mechanisms he used, chiefly splitting and projection, warped his judgment. They were part of his mental illness.

Grace, Morality, and Biology

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

davids

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

davids

SonoranWriter

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

davids

SonoranWriter

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

SonoranWriter

reph

Fig of authority