19 Oct '08 06:11>
Please bear with me here, I am sort of thinking aloud.
The kingdom is a kingdom of love not a kingdom of judgement. To enter you leave your judgements behind and embrace love.
The above was posted by knightmeister in another thread. This got me thinking about something not really related to the topic there.
It seems clear that we humans possess (more or less innate) moral faculty. By that I do not mean merely that we exhibit prosocial emotions and tendencies (like love, sympathy, altruism) or that we have natural inhibitions toward other behaviors. I mean further that we make moral judgments, we tend to think in terms of moral dichotomies like right and wrong, we often deliberate and instruct in terms of rules and prohibitions, we form judgments of others in terms of desert (whether praiseworthy or blameworthy) and think in terms of reward and punishment, etc. I happen to think all of these facts admit of very plausible evolutionary explanations. On the other hand, if the supposition is that we were created by some all-knowing, all-powerful agent; and further that his ultimate goals lie in prosociality (for example, that our purpose is to enter into loving and other-regarding relationships), then I think it becomes more difficult to explain all these elements of moral faculty. My question is why would such a creator provide for an ability like forming moral judgments about others when, supposedly, being judgmental is counteractive to our purpose.
We could consider a hypothetical group of persons. They are characteristically friendly, cooperative, and live in peace and harmony; and violence or any sort of divisiveness is unheard of. Their actions flow naturally from the deliverances of prosociality -- like love, compassion, altruism and other-regarding sentiments. They also have natural inhibitions against things like murder or theft or lying, and as such they would never dream of engaging in such things, so to speak. They mutually engage in meaningful relationships and projects. And one of my points here is this: as far as I can see, none of this actually requires that these hypothetical persons hold the capacity to form moral judgments about each other; or to think in terms of desert or reward or punishment; or to think in terms of rules or prohibitions; or even to have any sense of moral obligation or duty. These hypothetical persons deliberate and act accordingly, but none of what I just mentioned enters into their deliberations. My question is, why would god give us tendencies to engage in these things that are not actually requisite for the prosocial elements (these prosocial elements being, supposedly, what he really values). Why wouldn't he just create a group much like this hypothetical one? If god is supposedly a god of prosociality (and if, as KM suggests, we are to leave our judgments at the door anyway), then why did he bother giving us the ability and the tendency to form (often disparaging) judgments of others?
The kingdom is a kingdom of love not a kingdom of judgement. To enter you leave your judgements behind and embrace love.
The above was posted by knightmeister in another thread. This got me thinking about something not really related to the topic there.
It seems clear that we humans possess (more or less innate) moral faculty. By that I do not mean merely that we exhibit prosocial emotions and tendencies (like love, sympathy, altruism) or that we have natural inhibitions toward other behaviors. I mean further that we make moral judgments, we tend to think in terms of moral dichotomies like right and wrong, we often deliberate and instruct in terms of rules and prohibitions, we form judgments of others in terms of desert (whether praiseworthy or blameworthy) and think in terms of reward and punishment, etc. I happen to think all of these facts admit of very plausible evolutionary explanations. On the other hand, if the supposition is that we were created by some all-knowing, all-powerful agent; and further that his ultimate goals lie in prosociality (for example, that our purpose is to enter into loving and other-regarding relationships), then I think it becomes more difficult to explain all these elements of moral faculty. My question is why would such a creator provide for an ability like forming moral judgments about others when, supposedly, being judgmental is counteractive to our purpose.
We could consider a hypothetical group of persons. They are characteristically friendly, cooperative, and live in peace and harmony; and violence or any sort of divisiveness is unheard of. Their actions flow naturally from the deliverances of prosociality -- like love, compassion, altruism and other-regarding sentiments. They also have natural inhibitions against things like murder or theft or lying, and as such they would never dream of engaging in such things, so to speak. They mutually engage in meaningful relationships and projects. And one of my points here is this: as far as I can see, none of this actually requires that these hypothetical persons hold the capacity to form moral judgments about each other; or to think in terms of desert or reward or punishment; or to think in terms of rules or prohibitions; or even to have any sense of moral obligation or duty. These hypothetical persons deliberate and act accordingly, but none of what I just mentioned enters into their deliberations. My question is, why would god give us tendencies to engage in these things that are not actually requisite for the prosocial elements (these prosocial elements being, supposedly, what he really values). Why wouldn't he just create a group much like this hypothetical one? If god is supposedly a god of prosociality (and if, as KM suggests, we are to leave our judgments at the door anyway), then why did he bother giving us the ability and the tendency to form (often disparaging) judgments of others?