Dawkins Letters Morality

David Robertson talks about the whole question of morality

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• dawkins

[MrWhizz1878]

Not about morality explicitly, but social species such as humans tend to behave in ways that are collaborative with the individuals in their social groups. This tendency is a genetic disposition (i.e. those with genes that drive unco-operative behaviours will tend to be driven out of social groups and it is harder to survive or find mates in this context so the genes for co-operation within social groupings becomes the norm). This is evolution's contribution to our moral framework.

[1878MrWhizz]

Given the scale of the appalling child rape scandal going through the Catholic church at the moment, compounded by the complicity cover-up actions, and compounded even more by the immense hypocrisy that the organisation claims to provide some sort of moral guidance to those thank think they need it......I don't think its atheists that have an Achilles heal when it comes to morality. Would be very interested in whether you still think youre right in your video.

[murchimal]

What an irritating and arrogant man. His assertion that he just wants us to think, as if Dawkins is the only book / point of view that we've read. If only we'd ponder his fatuous and casuistic reasoning we'd come to the light. The cretinous objective morality argument always astonishes. It's blindingly obvious that morality is relative to the society / time we live in. And is it just me or do you find the idea of him in a book shop telling a strange woman that she is beautiful creepy?

[earlofainsdale]

Just because you find something depressing or think it "leads us down a very dark alley" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or not

[TheBlackWhirlwind]

Einstein was right. For many reasons the human race is a sorry lot, but unfortunately that is also why the only thing certain people understand is practical deterrents, punishment and justice for certain bad deeds, and conversely practical rewards for certain good deeds. It's just the world we live in. I honestly think people ought to by duty do good things, simply because it is the right thing to do, and believe it should be recognised and encouraged, and bad actions discouraged.

[MrWhizz1878]

@littlemas2 : With respect, I'm bored of our discussion now as you're clearly not interested in thinking about there being any possible alternative to your view. You are just ignoring everything I've said or just not understanding what I'm saying. Either way, I feel as though I'm talking to myself and wasting my time trying to engage with you. Have it your way. Your God is fab and the bible gives superb moral guidance that we should all follow. Now, let me go throw out all my shellfish.

[littlemas2]

@MrWhizz1878 You give a possible reason for how morality could have developed, but give no reason why anyone once conscious of the fact that morality is just opinion should still follow it. So what if society says something is wrong. Already, in this society we have decided it is ok to leave your spouse and kids if it makes you feel better, who cares about the consequences to others. Will it be okay if we decide like some ancient Greek and Arab societies that child sex is okay?

[littlemas2]

@MrWhizz1878 Just because people have behaved badly through time (just as the Bible presents) does not mean that somehow the expectations of how they should behave have changed a great deal. Furthermore, just because some people have tried to justify bad behavior does not somehow make it right. Child rape was no more right when a Greek philosophers tried to justify it, then it is now when a Catholic priest does it.

[littlemas2]

@MrWhizz1878 If you start with the assumption that morality is relative and then look at changing cultural values through time, presto you find evidence for you belief. The Bible though presents a different picture. Yes, different biblical peoples had different cultural expectations, and throughout the Bible those expectations are contrasted against a constant morality that comes from God. The whole story of the Bible is about human sinfulness and God's calling people back to himself.

[MrWhizz1878]

@littlemas2 : Your last two answers say "may differ depending on the circumstances" and "at that time in history" and "to deal with the specific time, culture and people group". QED.

These principles you say are "applicable generally", will these be the things that all human societies regardless of religion have common between them (i.e. no to murder, no to stealing, etc.). That is, things that you'd expect to see in a species that has evolved to be a social animal. Again, QED.

[MrWhizz1878]

@littlemas2 : Answer 1. That's precisely my point....that the guidance in the bible applies to a time and culture (neither of which are here and now). That you are suggesting I need to check commentaries to explain the context makes my point for me!! Answer 2. Humans are social species and our morality has been shaped by our ancestry in that context (e.g. I know of no human society that thinks it's right to kill its members). My position is simply how things are.

[littlemas2]

@MrWhizz1878 Let me ask two question which you have failed to respond to. Have you ever examined the context of the passages you are using? I can point you to some good technical commentaries if you like. Second and back to the main point: How does moral relativism deal with someone or some other culture who wants to steal from or kill you? How is large society even possible if everyone does what is right in their own eyes? Your position is simply unlivable in a free society.