Reply to post: Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

I can’t prove they did wrong, no one can, but I can explain why the general consensus is that they were twats of the highest order.

In common with many religious people you appear to prefer ill thought through, broad brush and simplistic solutions to complicated issues; you’re views on morality are the perfect example. I almost feel embarrassed for you, but I can’t leave such retrograde ideas unanswered.

You see, hominids (yes it started before humans you know, more than 6,000 years ago!) didn’t just wake up one day and say to the other half:

“Ere Barry, I’m feeling dead moral today. You know all that fun stuff we do to that tribe over the river? Like murdering their kids, raping the wives and then killing all the rest who couldn’t escape? It’s wrong. Dead Wrong! You are not to do it anymore, OK? It stops NOW. We should collaborate from now on, help them out so they will help us out, help feed their hungry when we’ve had a great harvest and they struggled. Back them up when they get invaded by that scary, funny-looking tribe from far away. You know, treat them like family, and look after them where we can, protect them.”

“Why’s that love?”

“I don’t know Barry, I’m tempted to say that it makes sense from a game-theoretic perspective, but as game theory is yet to be invented, that’s an explanation I will have to leave to future generations. It just seems common sense love; if we look after them, they will look after us, if we protect them like we would our own group and family, they will reciprocate. If we share food and resources, they will do the same with us and we will all prosper. We will be safer, less anxious, happier, healthier, and stronger as a group. You know, over time we will probably learn to accept other people in our larger group as almost an extension of our family. Hurting, being mean and not caring for them will make them feel bad and being nice to them will make them feel good. As we are a social species that has developed a strong theory of mind, we will have insight into their experiences. We will know instinctively that if they feel bad because of us, they will be less likely to help and protect us, and that makes us feel sad and scared. Mind you, we will still be wary of tribes from far away and those that look different, but that will reduce with time – as we become more educated. Some of our less intelligent members may continue to be horrible to outsiders for countless generations to come.”

“Fair enough Margaret, you were always more of a people-hominid than me. That’s why I married you.”

Of course that is certainly more likely than Barry and Margaret waking up one morning and saying: “Blimey, God wants us to be good to others!”

Although the process described by Margaret didn’t come to her overnight, it did happen albeit very slowly, almost unimaginably slowly to us humans who think in terms of one or two lifetimes. But that process this has not occurred in isolation, our views of morality have developed in tandem with culture, philosophy and ethics. Crucially we have also been able to communicate between distant generations using the written word.

In fact, probably the fastest ever rate of change to our ideas around morality has occurred since we had wide access to the written word, i.e. since the late middle ages. Up until that point our morality was based entirely on religion – you will recall that the slaughtering of other tribes e.g. in the crusades was perfectly fine, and actively encouraged. The Divine Right of Kings meant that theology could be used to exterminate whole populations, on a whim if need be. Women were property, there was no such thing as rape. Hanging children for theft? Not a problem. Brutal and barbaric retribution was the very basis of morality.

Then there is all the state sanctioned killing, torture and genocide. You don’t like our version of Christianity? We will crush your skull till your eyes are forced out, stretch you on a rack until your ligaments snap and joints dislocate. Alternatively, you can choose between being burned at the stake or have your skin peeled off while you watch. It was also jolly bad luck being a witch or supporting a heliocentric solar system, both could (and did) get you burned alive, all due to religious morality.

So what happened then? The enlightenment. Brave philosophers shook off their shackles to religion. Moral philosophy started being earnestly discussed and debated for its own sake and for the benefit of humanity. Our agreed moral standards no longer had to pay homage to the ancient rules of murderous and genocidal Gods. The result? We arrived at a consensus allowing human rights, and freedoms to flourish, freeing many from lives of abject misery, servitude and pain. Over time, these changes have led to our species experiencing far less suffering, far more joy and equality.

For your claim of an objective morality based on religion to be taken seriously, you would have to explain the enormous difference in widely accepted views on morality between the middle ages and now. Most (nearly all) people would view those changes as representing vast improvements in our moral code. The recognition and deep respect of the humanity of each individual is probably one of the most profound changes, both in its magnitude and the reduction in suffering it has led to. It’s also apparently one of the fundamental tenets of all Abrahamic religions. However, along with declining influence of religion, our respect for humanity and the dignity of human beings has sky rocketed in recent centuries. Confusing isn’t it?

The central conundrum here is that in developed societies religion has almost no impact on the moral consensus of a society when it comes to freedom, justice, views on violence, killing, human dignity, equality. Each of these markers has improved beyond measure since we started debating philosophy on a secular basis. Why is that?