Of course not all of the Founders were equally enlightened with regard to human nature. Therefore some of them were less sensitive to human rights than others. But those who carried the most influence, who had power to speak for the entire group of leaders, were deeply concerned with and sensitive to innate rights. I suspect that is why they were men of such power. They posited the ultimate rights that should accrue to themselves as a result of their being creatures in nature and they also saw those rights theoretically accruing to others for the same reason.
Yet they lived in a culture informed by unenlightened notions regarding women and race. Putting the economic pressures of slavery aside, the Founders generally knew the races were essentially equal (women included), but they did not wish certain of these races to be leading parts of their particular associations.
Herein lies the paradox. Those they seemed to recognize the innate rights of all men, in practice they narrowly defined who qualified. Their ‘inalienable’ rights were, in fact, transferred to others (rich white guys). As you point out, some of the more enlightened fathers abhorred and fought against slavery, yet would probably recoil at the prospect of considering these ‘lesser’ races as equals. Even rich white guys didn’t get full representation due to the wondrous electoral college.
So, the question is, with regards to this seeming hypocrisy: were the founders lying? Misinformed? Ignorant? Or immoral? I suppose in the grand scheme, it doesn’t matter. They left the world a better place, though far from the best. In their rhetoric, there is no hint of a feeling on their part that they were compromising their moral stances. Indeed, if anything, they were slightly full of themselves, which can certainly be forgiven given their efforts and sacrifices. Thus, my opinion is that they were moral men, acting morally within the time frame’s moral framework.
It was a valid position because while humans may be biological equals, they are not all cultural equals. It is valid to discriminate on the basis of class, education, skills, bearing and culture.
Not sure what you mean by ‘discriminate’ in this context. I would not think that you mean that these criteria should be used in the area of guaranteeing rights. Obviously, certain functions must be filled by people who are qualified; that’s not discrimination, it’s sensible business. However, to deny a class or group of people the ability to obtain that qualifying education, skills, etc, would be a denial of rights.
Some founders, perhaps most (certainly not all), may have confused race for these things, believing skills and bearing were linked to race, but the fact is, whether confused or not, they had a right to associate or disassociate with whomever they wished.
I do not fault them for forming discriminatory associations and then envisioning those associations being led only by those of their own general station. I fault them for structuring their associations on the backs of others and then forcing those others to live within the associations as inferior people, even denying them freedom to leave and form their own associations. What was also incomprehensibly immoral was their allowing social codes forbidding the free association of people, whatever their race. Nevertheless these wrongs were essentially established long before the Founders came along. By their day, the wrongs had become roundly accepted, though many people knew them to be wrong. Considering this climate of moral ignorance and dishonesty, I cannot help but give the Founders credit for at least knowing the wrongs were wrongs.
This is where we disagree, possibly dramatically, possibly semantically. I believe that there was a generally accepted moral framework that shifts over time, given the environment and conditions of the day. I suppose another way to look at it is that there is an absolute morality that is not visible to all people, both past and present. And I’ll give you that, to those where it is apparent, it must be frustrating to coexist with those of us who do not see it.
It is not the problem in the least. Dishonesty and ignorance, especially self-ignorance, are the problem. Morality sits ever before us, whispering to everyone precisely what ought and ought not be done. Many people are simply blind to it. The problem is that because leftists are blind and dishonest regarding it, they assume everyone else is blind and that it is impossible for anyone ever to see. They promote such ideas as “tolerance,” and they claim there are no absolutes, apparently unaware that their declarations here are themselves absolutes. The objectively apparent fact is, Hitler was wrong because there are indeed moral absolutes. He was wrong across all ages. He will always be wrong. His wrong is etched in the universe, in the cosmos, in the earth, in its trees, in the flesh of every human who has ever lived and who will ever live. His wrong will be wrong even when this world passes away.
Agree with the Hitler part. There is no moral framework, however distorted, that can justify his actions. But, you’re using a pretty broad brush here. What I mean by tolerance, is the acceptance of that fact that there are, imo, multiple overlapping and valid moral frameworks that must be considered as a union, even when they conflict (more on that latter).
Natural Morality is no “oasis,” and it is not in the distance. It is very near you. In fact it is in your body-- in your nature and mine. This is not to say being moral is your behavioral tendency. It is to say your will to exist, brought alongside the equal will of others, dictates what is naturally moral.
People are not generally on a path to righteousness because they do not know what they are in nature. They are increasingly divided, even in their families. They are murdering their own children and entertaining the acceptance of sodomites in their societies. Savages are intentionally murdering innocent people with the approval of their heathen god. Crime increases and now spreads into their communities and they are increasingly becoming slaves to their senses, bringing to themselves greater amounts of heart-disease, debt, unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse, sex abuse, pornography, diabetes, divorce, depression and other pathologies. I see no general trend of communion among men, no increasing sense of unity around a stable set of convictions. To them, all is relative and often in conflict-- and that is acceptable to them. It is an absolute tenet to them that everyone should be “tolerant” of the views of others, except if those views reference the truth that is in their own flesh. As a result, heathens in their societies now actually think their folly is equal to the superior beliefs around them; and they sense no need to learn themselves better so that they might change.
Well, first off, I don’t agree with your outlook on the direction of our current society. I think that it is factually incorrect to insinuate that the American society is in some sort of decay. Although certain crimes are on the rise, the overall crime rates are dropping. There is less underreported crime today, such as rape, child abuse, murder, etc, because of increasing awareness and less corrupt law enforcement. In decades past, a husband would not be charged with raping his wife; child abuse was considered a hush subject; murder in some parts of the country was masked as ‘good citizens expediting justice’. There is, in fact, less ‘tolerance’ of criminal behavior than in decades past.
Not sure that the health trends can necessarily be blamed on any moral decay. The fact is that many jobs today are sedentary. There is much more awareness today of the issues of diet, nutrition, and exercise, yet we are fatter because many people sit behind a desk for a good portion of their day. This shift from an active work style has lead us to the heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Furthermore, I think that the media helps to give the impression of some sort of moral decay. They have a tendency to report bad news, even when it represents a very small fraction of everyday life. Given this magnification of the extraordinary and sensational, we are viewing society in a distorted manner.
We may not know the complete moral code of nature, but we certainly know some of it. The Founders codified some of it and referred to it as the basis of American existence. From their example and that of many others, we see that to discover nature’s moral code we must continually study who and what we are fundamentally, biologically, and then protect the existence of what we find, including that upon which our existence objectively depends. Since others are our biological equals, we must never infringe upon the right in others to protect their own existence.
Why this emphasis on biological identity? The emphasis is due to the fact that biological identity is the only identity that is objective-- that humans may together reasonably conclude exists. Between us we have no objective means to determine that religious beliefs are universally true. So religion in itself is unsuitable as natural law for all. Moral law in nature must be essentially defined by and grounded in nature. Where humans are concerned, morality is bound by human biology.
Different cultures have different degrees of moral ignorance. But to be sure, morality is as fixed as our bodies. You may think our bodies evolve, but your view is pure religion, from my vantagepoint utter speculation, since you have no objective and empirical evidence proving it. Religion, atheist or otherwise, is insufficient to form natural moral law for all.
By ‘You may think our bodies evolve’, I assume you mean evolution? There is ample evidence of evolution, both in bodies of study and hard evidence. However, I think that may be a perpendicular argument.
<Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, and think it is immoral to do so. >
Jews and Muslims are ignorant here – and clearly so because there is nothing inherently anti-human with intentionally eating pork. Of course intentionally eating too much pork is immoral, but that says nothing about eating pork itself.
<Christians believe that working on Sundays is disrespectful of the Lord. >
You commit an error here. Unlike the Jewish and Islamic beliefs to which you have referred, this Christian belief is one that stretches beyond nature, seeking to inform us of what is moral in spiritual realms that are inaccessible to you (but not to me).
We may objectively evaluate the ignorance of Jews and Muslims with regard to eating pork. We simply need eat bacon once, and, when all things are told, we will find ourselves preserved, not destroyed, even promoted, since the pork can be used by our biology as fuel. In nature, there is just no proof at all that anything immoral takes place by eating pork.
Contrariwise, we may not refer to objective biology to evaluate whether it is disrespectful to the Lord to work on Sundays. The question is one answerable only by means that extend beyond nature. Now, because I have these extra-natural means, I know of a certainty that the Christian belief here is true and that those who argue to the contrary are quite wrong.
I am no expert on Judaism or Islam, so I cannot comment as to the original of their shunning of pork. True, to eschew pork has no basis in biology (although it may have a basis in ancient food sanitary issues). But, to avoid working on Sundays also has no basis in biology. I do not see a difference in your ‘means that extend beyond nature’ with regards to working on Sundays, and a potential identical means amongst Jews and Muslims with regards to eating pork. Since these means have no provable existence, I can either accept both, or neither. Here is an example of what I call tolerance; I choose to accept both, without question or need for scientific proof. If you believe that, in the context of your spirituality, it is immoral for you to work on Sunday, so be it. I won’t ask you to split logs with me on Sunday. If a Jew or Muslim declines to eat the pork dish I’ve offered, so be it, I’ll toss a couple of more chickens on the grill. Here is an example, though in itself small, of conflicting moralities of different cultures that require a ‘moral union’, and show the difficulty of a single, absolute moral code.
<Vegans believe that eating meat is immoral. >
This belief can be objectively evaluated in our material realm. By referring to our biology, we find eating meat as a principle is not inherently anti-us. Vegans are objectively ignorant.
I must disagree here, also. Study after study has shown that a vegetarian diet is superior, biologically, to a non-vegetarian diet. Cholesterol, percentage of fat, carcinogens in meat preparation, etc result in higher incidents of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. In fact, meat is not only unnecessary, it is unhealthy. Additionally, as my vegetarian friends gleefully point out, the amount of natural resources necessary to produce meat is many times higher than those necessary to produce a nutritionally equivalent amount of plant-based food. So, to follow your biological argument, and add in an additional societal argument, meat eaters are the immoral ones, the ignorant ones.
<Everyone's got their own opinion.>
But not all of these opinions are equal. You commit error when you compare Christianity, which in this case extends morality beyond nature, with heathen beliefs that can be objectively evaluated here in nature. Try to choose Christian moral beliefs that are nature-bound to make your case.
Not sure, do you consider vegans to be heathens? I consider many of them to be self righteous pains-in-the-ass, but I think they are right. I just can’t bring myself to give up a nicely grilled steak. I admit my immorality in this area.
<So, is morality the sum of these beliefs? >
Absolutely not. If trapped in the natural world, as you are, then morality is what I have described above. It is objectively all you have in this world. You may refer to hinduism, christianity, islam and other hogwash to fill out your moral code, but if those belief systems do not reflect our biology, they are just magic and are therefore unworthy of being forced on anyone else by law. If their moral decrees do reflect biology, then they are unnecessary because the moral conclusions they teach are derivable from biology alone. We may completely toss away religion and refer only to biology to find what is truly moral here in nature.
But we must be willing to be consistent. Natural morality is not in itself attached to anything but itself. It is a closed system and it does not compel much of what you now empty-headedly take for granted as a result of religion. Natural morality dictates that I have absolutely no innate obligation to you, save not to infringe upon your rights. If you are about to die and I perceive helping you lacks a benefit to me, then my letting you die causes no moral infringement at all. As far as I am concerned, your worth increases only inasmuch as you present a benefit to me.
Christianity presents a far superior morality than that found in nature. It extends nature unlike any other system. In it, I am compelled to help you regardless of my perceptions of your worth. Indeed, it commands me as an individual, to help you even if you are aiming to harm me. The basis for this looms very far above mere biology. No other extra-natural system comes even close to it. But since it is inaccessible to you, it cannot be forced as a point of law, precisely as your evolution and other like trash.
Well, I certainly agree that a strictly biological moral framework is poor. Biologically, one of the strongest emotional responses of the human is self preservation. In a moral framework where self preservation were the highest moral law, we’d be living like, well, cavemen.
However, I cannot say that a Christian moral framework is necessarily superior to other frameworks, such as Modern or Secular Humanism. The addition of faith in an unseen deity is not in itself a necessity in forming a superior moral framework. In fact, one could argue that if the particular flavor of Christian framework were too restrictive vis-à-vis tolerance of other frameworks, that a secular moral framework may be superior, in that it would allow for differences in cultural moral frameworks (such as my Pork/Sunday/Vegan example).
<What if [beliefs] contradict?>
If belief systems contradict biological nature, they are objectively immoral (murder, for example, is objectively immoral because as a principle it denies human identity). On the other hand if a belief system does not contradict biological nature, then it is materially unnecessary because biological nature tells us the truth without it. Christianity is truly unnecessary where natural life is concerned because all of nature is perishing. What Christianity does is allows perishing people to escape the condemnation of all nature to find intimacy with God. No other belief system offers this.
Those trapped in nature cannot possibly understand this. The only morality they truly have between them is the morality offered them by nature. There is, for example, no objective and apparent reason in natural morality declaring that I must help every starving person who appears unable to help me.
Well, I think you’re not allowing for moral frameworks that are not Christian- or nature-based. Some flavors of humanism recognize the need for moral laws and deeds that selflessly advance humankind. In fact, they are arguably more moral, in that they advocate doing good deeds for humankind so that our sons and daughters have a better world, with neither an offer of post-mortal reward nor fear of eternal damnation.
<So, what is the 'ultimate' morality?>
This depends upon your frame of reference. Since you are trapped here in nature, morality for you is found only here in nature, specifically in your body. That is the only thing that is objectively common between you and all other humans. You may claim islam, christianity and heathen belief systems like these as sources of morality, but you have no objective basis to force them on anyone else.
Unlike you, I am not bound here in nature – at least not purely. When I appear harsh to you, I appeal to your morality. But when I am loving, I appeal to the only means by which humans may escape natural morality to find intimacy with God. To you, it is literal nonsense – magic. So then I tend to leave us both to deal with issues by means of the natural world and its harsh morality. In dealing with you I cannot legitimately appeal purely to higher Christian morality because you are hopelessly ignorant of it. But I can legitimately appeal to natural morality because though weak and perishing, it is objectively us.
Here is where we disagree the most, I fear. I believe that humans are inherently good, without the need of a religious morality. I believe that some humans turn to religion to codify their inherent goodness. Others reject religion, and their own morality; some accept religion, or at least the religious framework, but reject morality (bin Laden is an example). But, another segment recognizes their inherent goodness but rejects the need for a religious means of framing this goodness.
Call them agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans, whatever, there is a segment of the population that follow a non-religious moral framework that is in many ways similar to Christianity without the God. It is a framework that recognizes the rights and needs of the individual, as well as the needs of the society for justice, tolerance, and mutual benefit. I know that many Christians find this concept abominable, a religion without God, so to speak. But, many cannot accept that others could be truly moral people without the need of religion.
<Some say that morality is an absolute. I don't see how that can be, given that society changes and evolves, and faces new issues with each generation. >
Morality is absolute. It will always be wrong to do as Hitler did. It will never be biologically correct. The principle of Hitler’s view and the principle of human identity are mutually exclusive.
Well, as I’ve said, the example of Hitler is not pertinent. He was obviously immoral. However, can we say that morality is absolute when we compare, say, Christianity, Judaism, and Secular Humanism? There are many conflicts between these moral frameworks. Can you say for certain that the Christian moral framework is the Absolute One?
I have to laugh when I read about the close alliances of Christians and Zionists. It seems that the Christians came to support Zionism because they believe that, for the Rapture to be triggered, the Jews must rebuild the Temple (forgive me if I have this wrong; I may be ignorant in this area). If true, it means that the Christians need the Zionists to build their temple so that God can come down, lift all Christians up in rapture, while flinging all Jews into the pit of hell? Is this an example of absolute morality?
<We may have a 'sense' of morality, when things feel 'right' or 'wrong', but as far as their being a single set of rules that pin down the moving morality target, I'm not seeing it. >
Not to offend, but this is because you are ignorant. Merely because you are not ‘seeing it’ does not mean it is not right in your face whispering to you. You will never see it because you have already decided in your mind that it does not exist. If you cannot see the clear moral truth objectively available to you here in nature, you cannot possibly see the higher moral truth extending from nature through Christ and into God.
<Especially when you see the clashing morality of different groups that all seem to think that THEIR concept of morality is an absolute. >
You are not seeing clashing morality here. You are seeing clashing ignorance. Most people are like you, Kevin. They ‘don’t see it’ and yet, like you, they make declarations of what is true and then begin to enforce them upon others. When they do that, they ruffle a lot of folks. That is what you see in the conflicts. There are no legitimate “moralities” that are in conflict. There is moral ignorance.
I am certainly not offended. I’m just smart enough to know that there are many things I am ignorant of. I choose to see the things I see. As they say, I may be wrong, but I’m not confused. |
