God's Moral Experiment
Our friend Antonius over at Boring Diatribe has considered the current run of business and political scandals in a moral light, with a little help from the intelligent design folks, game theory, and the prisoner's dilemma. Worth your time to read.
His basic thesis is that morality does not necessarily arise from God or religion, but rather from the fact that in general, it's a more successful strategy for a society. Which reminded me of a paper I wrote in college that was a utilitarian analysis of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, given the time, place, and circumstances, those commandments were pretty useful guidelines for living. Later, in the New Testament, Jesus winnows it down to one commandment:
But the fact is that even the best of us don't go through our day seeing every person as ourselves. And we certainly have hierarchies--family, friends, people like us (whether that means economically, racially, culturally, nationally, etc.), geographical proximity--of whom we are more likely to help. With limited resources, we have to make choices. Of course, if that commandment were a Kantian categorical imperative the duty of which is acknowledged by everyone, everyone would be giving something to the needy and no individual would have to give it all; for practical purposes, it would mean voluntary socialism. (I've said before that Christ was a liberal. Now the dirty secret is out: Christ was a socialist! Take that, right-wing so-called Christians!)
But we don't do that. Not just out of practical concerns, either. Everybody wants to be special--that's the competition part of evolution--in some respect, at some point. And we like some people more than others, and make choices accordingly. Hence, the need for a first commandment to enforce the second: God is bigger and better than you, and he's going to make you suffer if you don't behave.
Kant sought the moral authority in reason, but face it, only a small percentage of people have the luxury or and/or inclination for time examining the philosophy of morality, and even fewer make their daily choices in light of moral philosophy. Striking a little visceral fear of God into people is certainly a more practical--utilitarian--solution.
Which leads to the conclusion that religion is itself a utilitarian invention--a successful strategy, as Antonius might put it.
Does this in turn imply that God does not exist? Not necessarily. I think the premise of the utility of God's commandment is independent of whether it came from God or not.
But, like the categorical imperative, it falls down if everyone doesn't buy into it all the time. And given that the so-called Christians running our government are advocates of torture (thanks, Antonius and Reductio, for giving me so much to think about), even those who call themselves believers have lost the plot.
Hey, God, this experiment hasn't worked; what's your next hypothesis?
His basic thesis is that morality does not necessarily arise from God or religion, but rather from the fact that in general, it's a more successful strategy for a society. Which reminded me of a paper I wrote in college that was a utilitarian analysis of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, given the time, place, and circumstances, those commandments were pretty useful guidelines for living. Later, in the New Testament, Jesus winnows it down to one commandment:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 22:37-39 [King James Version])I'll treat the first part below; the second, love thy neighbo(u)r as thyself, is clearly utilitarian in a Kantian way. That is to say, it depends on everyone buying into the same social contract. (Gallons of ink have been spent on his essay "On Lying," in which he posits a murderer asking you where to find the person he wants to murder, and explains why in that circumstance you still shouldn't lie.) If everyone treated other people as they would like to be treated themselves--from being polite to each other in public on up to helping each other in need--sure, the world would be a better place. (Other cultures and institutions and individuals have formulated this in different ways--"walk a mile in his moccasins," etc.--it's not unique to Christianity, no doubt because of its utility.)
But the fact is that even the best of us don't go through our day seeing every person as ourselves. And we certainly have hierarchies--family, friends, people like us (whether that means economically, racially, culturally, nationally, etc.), geographical proximity--of whom we are more likely to help. With limited resources, we have to make choices. Of course, if that commandment were a Kantian categorical imperative the duty of which is acknowledged by everyone, everyone would be giving something to the needy and no individual would have to give it all; for practical purposes, it would mean voluntary socialism. (I've said before that Christ was a liberal. Now the dirty secret is out: Christ was a socialist! Take that, right-wing so-called Christians!)
But we don't do that. Not just out of practical concerns, either. Everybody wants to be special--that's the competition part of evolution--in some respect, at some point. And we like some people more than others, and make choices accordingly. Hence, the need for a first commandment to enforce the second: God is bigger and better than you, and he's going to make you suffer if you don't behave.
Kant sought the moral authority in reason, but face it, only a small percentage of people have the luxury or and/or inclination for time examining the philosophy of morality, and even fewer make their daily choices in light of moral philosophy. Striking a little visceral fear of God into people is certainly a more practical--utilitarian--solution.
Which leads to the conclusion that religion is itself a utilitarian invention--a successful strategy, as Antonius might put it.
Does this in turn imply that God does not exist? Not necessarily. I think the premise of the utility of God's commandment is independent of whether it came from God or not.
But, like the categorical imperative, it falls down if everyone doesn't buy into it all the time. And given that the so-called Christians running our government are advocates of torture (thanks, Antonius and Reductio, for giving me so much to think about), even those who call themselves believers have lost the plot.
Hey, God, this experiment hasn't worked; what's your next hypothesis?
posted by Maines at 11:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home