Well, we're the ones who are able to think in terms of principles. I don't think you could even talk about a "code" of behavior for a cat, for example. A cat doesn't seem to think about the future at all, so they could never decide on a principle to follow. (An instinct doesn't count.)
The author's point is, there's no way for you to prove that you're not just making those principles up. And you're merely assuming that "thinking about the future" is somehow morally important. Sure, it's a useful survival technique; in fact, we see bears, squirrels, bees, and ants acting on those principles every summer and fall. And yet those are animals which use violence and force....
I think a "code" has to be consistent by definition. Why else would we even care about this? We hope, presumably, that society adopts & keeps to a moral code that's close to our moral codes. (Which I assume are similar to each other in many ways since we're both Freepers.) A moral code is inherently a set of principles.
I suppose so -- but again you're assuming a whole raft of things. You surely recognize that "Might Makes Right" is a logically consistent moral code in its own right; is fully in line with "survival of the fittest" (and hence empirically observable); and has worked effectively for individual humans, which precisely what an evolution-based morality should do. The fact that we are (rightly, IMHO) horrified by such behavior has no bearing on whether or not it's moral, in any scientifically provable sense of the term.
Perhaps you recall that story a year or so ago, where a genetic study found that "Might Makes Right" practitioner Ghengis Khan's family tree extended across -- was it millions? -- of living humans. Surely that's a moral triumph, if you want to define morality in terms of scientifically-observable evolutionary behavior.
It's quite true that you and I share the same sort of moral code. Unfortunately, the precepts of that code actually run counter to what we can easily observe in nature and history (Ghengis Khan again). From a purely materialistic perspective, it means that, at best, ours would be a relative morality, and that there are other moral choices besides our own.
Our shared morality would probably label Ghengis Khan as an evil man. But to make the charge stick, we'd have to be able to point to a set of absolute standards, and absolute consequences for breaking them. But Ghengis Khan died old, rich, happy, and left behind an enormous family tree -- on what rational, empirical basis would you call him evil, when he was so obviously successful?
I meant in the sense of killing an innocent person, as in murder. Killing in self-defense is certainly justifiable when the threat warrants it.
Ghengis Khan made a living by killing innocent people, and was very well rewarded for it. Was he wrong?
It doesn't provide me with an automatic, precise answer to the question of borderline-justifiable coups, but I suspect neither would the Bible, for instance.
When you bring the Bible into this discussion, you bring in God, and His will. God's will is, in fact, a logical necessity for the sort of moral code we espouse. Lacking God, we lack any reason to condemn Ghengis Khan; indeed, we can only admire him.
We do still have to draw upon experience (history) as well as theory & speculation. Didn't the frequent palace coups in Imperial Rome help speed up the downfall of that society?
I think the frequent coups were more a symptom than a cause. Both the Roman people and their rulers had fallen into a decadence driven by a desire for "the comfortable and fun," rather than the difficult and often painful martial virtues which had made Rome great in the first place. On that note, it's interesting that libertarianism tends to encourage and defend the sorts of behavior characteristic of declining Rome -- it's why I'm not a libertarian.
I see the trend towards modern democracies & the kinds of societies that nurture them as an evolution towards systems that are successful because they do their jobs of promoting freedom & security well - and are self-sustaining because they're harder to overthrow because they have the support of an informed populace.
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.
Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it.
And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
Christian virtures, hard work, honesty and the Golden Rule, underlie Western Civilization and make democracy possible. To the extent that the virtues fail, democracy fails.
Layered upon Christian virtues is, ideally, a system of laws that is just and equally applicable to all within which property rights are respected, even sanctified.
As our mores have failed, the have-nots and those who would exploit democracy have voted to take from the haves, the laws are increasingly unequally applied (group rights, discrimination against white males etc.) and respect for property has declined (asset forfeiture laws).
Hans-Herman Hoppe has explored this in some depth in Democracy: The God That Failed.
I also agree with you with regard to Libertarianism.
Perhaps you recall that story a year or so ago, where a genetic study found that "Might Makes Right" practitioner Ghengis Khan's family tree extended across -- was it millions? -- of living humans. Surely that's a moral triumph, if you want to define morality in terms of scientifically-observable evolutionary behavior.I'd never heard of that! I guess for Mongolians, Ghengis Khan was truly the Father of the Country.
He was successful on his terms, that's for sure. But surely you understand that evolution only describes behavior, not prescribes behavior? You know - knowing the law of gravity doesn't mean it's immoral to try to slip the surly bonds of Earth, etc.? That's one point.
The second point is, again, that morality refers to something more than a self-serving evaluation of our actions. When we ask, "what's the best moral code?", we're asking for something that we can say is objective, or universally true in some sense. That's the nature of morality as a concept. And that's why I keep coming back to the question: "What kind of world would the proposed action produce if it were adopted as a universal code by everybody?"
If you like the kind of world that a consistent, universal application of the code would produce, then you can say it's a moral act, and you should feel good about doing it. If it leads to a vicious cycle, or if the kind of prosperous civilization that produced you could never have gotten off the ground to begin with, then it's an immoral act and you shouldn't do it even if you'll prosper from it. See? you can indeed prosper directly from acts that are nevertheless wrong.
A woman forgets to pick up a bag of money & walks away. Do I bother to ask myself if I'll profit from taking the bag of money? Of course not! That's obvious. The nagging question is, "is it moral to take the bag?" IOW, I'm asking myself, "should I feel justified or should I feel guilty if I take the bag?" That's a very different question than would I profit by taking the bag. Mere profit is not what a morality based on self-interest is all about.
Our moral sense is built largely on empathy. And I think that putting yourself in the other person's shoes to see if you feel they're getting a fair shake by your proposed action is a good real-world alternative to a drawn-out analysis of the long-term consequences as we're doing here. So if I saw the woman leave her bag, I'd never take the bag. I'd immediately feel I was stealing it, because I've forgotten things before, and it seems unreasonable that I should risk having my things swiped just because I had a momentary lapse.
But if I came across a bag of money sitting there with nobody around, then it's a bit murkier. Personally I'd still try to find its rightful owner: Nothing reinforces your view of your fellow man like coming back to the restaurant 2 days later to find that someone turned in your bag o' cash in hopes that you'd come back for it. That kind of thing happens in Seattle, though I doubt it'd ever happen in Detroit, where I grew up. But I don't think it's even always illegal to take it in that scenario, is it?
Anyway you get the idea. Moral questions are based on what the world would be like if everyone did it. IMO.
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.I agree that a society's moral foundation is, well, foundational. But I think the more important foundation is a respect for rationality and the individual nature of rights & responsibilities - and the ability to think in terms of principles.Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it.
And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
Funny you should mention the African democracies, etc. I'm currently reading the Voyage of the Beagle, and as Darwin was traipsing thru Argentina, Uruguay, & Paraguay, he described how dangerous & unstable they were. The Spaniards were in a long-term war with the natives, and I gather there were constant revolutions & coups within the Spanish colonial governments as well. At one point Darwin observed:
18th and 19th. -- We continued slowly to sail down the noble stream: the current helped us but little. We met, during our descent, very few vessels. One of the best gifts of nature, in so grand a channel of communication, seems here wilfully thrown away -- a river in which ships might navigate from a temperate country, as surprisingly abundant in certain productions as destitute of others, to another possessing a tropical climate, and a soil which, according to the best of judges, M. Bonpland, is perhaps unequalled in fertility in any part of the world. How different would have been the aspect of this river if English colonists had by good fortune first sailed up the Plata! What noble towns would now have occupied its shores! Till the death of Francia, the Dictator of Paraguay, these two countries must remain distinct, as if placed on opposite sides of the globe. And when the old bloody-minded tyrant is gone to his long account, Paraguay will be torn by revolutions, violent in proportion to the previous unnatural calm. That country will have to learn, like every other South American state, that a republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.October 20th. -- Being arrived at the mouth of the Parana, and as I was very anxious to reach Buenos Ayres, I went on shore at Las Conchas, with the intention of riding there. Upon landing, I found to my great surprise that I was to a certain degree a prisoner. A violent revolution having broken out, all the ports were laid under an embargo. I could not return to my vessel, and as for going by land to the city, it was out of the question. After a long conversation with the commandant, I obtained permission to go the next day to General Rolor, who commanded a division of the rebels on this side the capital. In the morning I rode to the encampment. The general, officers, and soldiers, all appeared, and I believe really were, great villains. ...
This revolution was supported by scarcely any pretext of grievances: but in a state which, in the course of nine months (from February to October, 1820), underwent fifteen changes in its government -- each governor, according to the constitution, being elected for three years -- it would be very unreasonable to ask for pretexts. ...
The reason why we label Ghengis Khan as an evil man is because of empathy, None of us would want to be on the receiving end in one of the areas he conquered and we can feel for the ones who were.
When you bring the Bible into this discussion, you bring in God, and His will. God's will is, in fact, a logical necessity for the sort of moral code we espouse. Lacking God, we lack any reason to condemn Ghengis Khan; indeed, we can only admire him.
The question is wrong in fact the opposite should be asked. Using the Bible as an example how can Christians/Jews claim Ghengis Khan was evil considering that there are many "Heroes" in the Bible who in terms of evil deeds are the equal of or worse than Ghengis Khan. Moses for example fits into that category, Just read of his exploits as written down in the Bible.
The only differences between Moses and Khan was Moses was killing and raping in the name of Judeo-Christian God where as Khan wasn't.
Now if after we took over Iraq George Bush ordered our troops to kill everybody including women and children but keep alive the virgin girls to do with what you will. I would assume hopefully the vast majority of people today would be appalled at such an order. It can't be because of Biblical reasons because in the Bible that is condoned because Moses gave that very order in Numbers 31:17 with even God getting some of the "Booty".
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.
Our Democracy/Republic form of government is not founded on Christianity, There are no Democracies/Republics in the bible what's so ever.
Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it. And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
And at the same time we see relative peace and prosperity in a Democratic but non-Christian modern day Japan yet there are all kinds of atrocities in the heavily foundation Christian Latin America countries and of course medevil/dark ages Europe under the church wasn't exactly a wonderful place to live so there is no correlation between the Religiousness of a country/area and morality of such.
Same with people, If being moral requires being religious than why do Atheist make up way less than 1% of the prision population?